Share This

Thursday, September 4, 2014

9/3, China's Victory Day over Japan

China's top leaders Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang, Zhang Dejiang, Yu Zhengsheng, Liu Yunshan, Wang Qishan and Zhang Gaoli present flower baskets to martyrs who sacrificed their lives in the Anti-Japanese War during a ceremony marking the 69th anniversary of Victory Day in the war at the Museum of the War of the Chinese People's Resistance Against Japanese Aggression in Beijing, capital of China, Sept. 3, 2014. (Xinhua/Wang Ye) 
Chinese leaders mark anti-Japanese war victory day - CCTV News - English

Studio interview: China-Japan ties frayed by Tokyo's attitude on war crimes

For more analysis, let’s bring in our studio guest Victor Gao, Current Affairs Commentator. Video: http://t.cn/RhUOWHx

Tokyo lost the war, and must accept defeat

Wednesday marks the 69th anniversary of China's victory in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1937-45). It is a day of solemnity that will remind us of myriad feelings. A multitude of people will commemorate the war at many events along with numerous reflections and summarizations that are becoming clearer as time passes.

The war of resistance is unforgettable for China and the Chinese people, not only because it was a brutal war which claimed tens of millions of lives, but also due to the cruel fact that the invader is a much smaller country across the sea. It is memorable also because Japan, the aggressor, has continued to make provocative actions toward China and South Korea despite its Waterloo in WWII.

China had weathered various hardships and witnessed declining national strength in its modern history, but the aggression of Japanese militarists became the peak in the tragedy of modern times in China. In concerted efforts, China and international anti-fascist forces defeated Japan. However, Japanese people have refused to view China as a true victor. They respect the US and the former Soviet Union but always give the cold shoulder to China and South Korea by ignoring all their requirements surrounding WWII. To continue our victory in the ruthless world war to the end, we need to completely overturn the understanding of Japanese society toward China since the Meiji Restoration in 1868. We should try to gain overwhelming advantages over Japan in major areas. Tokyo only shows respect to countries that have once heavily struck it or possess much greater strategic ability. This has been fully demonstrated by its docility under Washington's military occupation till now and its willingness to be students in front of modern European civilization and the ancient Chinese civilization of the Tang Dynasty (618-907).

During the past 69 years since the war's end, China has undergone vicissitudes and seen a historical reversal in its power balance with Japan. China has become the most powerful nation in Asia again. Nevertheless, Japan still boasts core advantages like advanced technology. Therefore, it has developed both a sense of crisis and a superiority complex toward China. The present day is witnessing a fierce geopolitical competition.

China and Japan will embark on the road of friendship eventually, which, however, will be peaceful and stable only when China overwhelms Japan in national strength. What we need is a rational Japan that behaves itself and stops serving as a pawn of the US to sabotage China's strategic interests. We need to crush Japan's will to constrain a rising Beijing and only in this way can Sino-Japanese friendship garner a fresh, solid foundation.

Source:Global Times Published: 2014-9-3 0:28:02

Related:

Bringing awareness of Nanking Massacre to West

Bringing awareness of Nanking Massacre to West



Related posts:

15 Aug 2014
Japanese World War II criminals' confessions released · FOCUS: War crimes still make headlines in China, 69 years after WWII · Racism and inferiority complex in Japan's current foreign policy towards China · Japanese war ...

Related articles

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

India's foolish crush on Japan

Can Modi's reverence for all things Japanese produce the right blueprint for the nation's future?

But those who Look East for Asian Values now seek out China rather than Japan!

India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, center, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, right, eat tea cakes during a tea ceremony at a tea hut of the Omotesenke, one of the main schools of Japanese tea ceremony, in Tokyo Monday, Sept. 1, 2014. Modi was on his official visit to Japan. (AP Photo/Yuya Shino, Pool)



Narendra Modi, India’s new prime minister, visited Japan twice during his long decade of ostracism by the West. He is one of only three people that Shinzo Abe follows on Twitter. Commentators have hailed Modi as "India’s Abe" because he seems as determined as the Japanese prime minister to boost national self-esteem through economic growth..

Japanese direct investment in India is rising; it may even help realize Modi’s grand, Japan-inspired vision of "smart cities" and bullet trains across India. But Modi has deeper reasons for bringing to his first major bilateral visit the intense ardor of a pilgrim approaching an ancient shrine..

Since the 19th century, Hindu nationalists have venerated Japan as the paradigmatic Asian society that preserves its traditional virtues while also developing industrial and military strength and inculcating patriotism among its citizens. Swami Vivekananda, an iconic Hindu thinker of the 19th century (also the only writer Modi seems to have extensively read) claimed after a visit that "if all our rich and educated men once go and see Japan, their eyes will be opened.".

Evidently, the Japanese had "taken everything from the Europeans, but they remain Japanese all the same" while in India, "the terrible mania of becoming Westernised has seized upon us like a plague.".

Modi ably channels Vivekananda in his praise for the Japanese traits of self-sacrificing nationalism. And he has not evolved a "Look East" policy just because U.K. and U.S. officials refused to meet with him and the U.S. denied him a visa after communal riots on his watch as chief minister of the state of Gujarat claimed more than 1,000 lives. Note that U.K. officials did not deny Modi a visa after the 2002 Gujarat riots. Modi seems sincere in his invocation of what Asia’s three outspoken leaders of the 1980s -- Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad and Japan’s Shintaro Ishihara -- called "Asian Values.".

Lee typically argued that the only antidote to "the disruptive individualism of Western liberalism" was renewed stress on "individual subordination to the community." This coincides perfectly with the values cherished by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (Modi’s ideological guide, and the parent outfit of Hindu nationalism). Not surprisingly, Modi’s recent Independence Day speech, which was widely hailed as "forward-looking and modern" was also, as the columnist Shekhar Gupta pointed out, "pure RSS" in its emphasis on "family values, morality, cleanliness, discipline and patriotism.".

But can Modi’s old-fashioned reverence for all things Japanese, from the tea ceremony to nuclear plants, produce the right blueprint for India’s future? After all, Japan today offers less instruction in world-conquering industrial growth and innovation than in the admirable art of "bending adversity" -- the title of a superb new book on Japan by David Pilling that Modi might find more up-to-date than Vivekananda’s musings..

The Japanese state’s striking early example of fostering internationally competitive local industries was closely followed by countries such as South Korea and Taiwan. Leaders of Malaysia and Indonesia eagerly sought Japanese investment in their economies, primarily to diversify their industrial bases..

The most avid of these Asian Japanophiles was Mahathir, the long-lasting prime minister of Malaysia and unabashed exponent of majoritarian nationalism. His own "Look East" policy was grounded in economic relations with Japan as well as racial and civilizational assertions of difference, and included an explicit anti-Western posture..

For a while, everything seemed to be going well. Then, in the 1990s the limits of Japanese developmentalism were exposed by the new age of globalization. So much of the Japanese economic miracle had been contingent on U.S. willingness during the Cold War to open its own markets to Japanese manufacturers while turning a blind eye to Japan’s blatantly protectionist trade policies and restrictions on capital movement..

Japan’s comparative advantage couldn’t last, and it didn't. The Asian financial crisis then went on to expose, among other things, the dangerous overreliance on foreign investment of countries like Malaysia. We haven’t heard much about Asian Values since then; those who Look East now seek out China rather than Japan..

Canceling talks with Pakistan, or rejecting the World Trade Organization deal reached at Bali, Modi could be projecting the India that can say no: He is more India’s Mahathir than India’s Abe. But it is hard not to suspect anachronism and naivete in Modi’s plan to model India’s economy on Japan’s postwar achievements of technical innovation and labor-intensive manufacturing..

The export-oriented economies of Japan and its Asian clients achieved their highest growth when most Chinese were still wearing drab Mao suits. The spirit of innovation long ago shifted from Sony to Apple; and Abenomics, the engine of a fresh national ascent to glory and power, is now running on empty..

Even Mahathir now thinks Japan made too many irrevocable mistakes, and has switched his affections to the Korea of Samsung and Hyundai. Arriving in Japan, Modi will no doubt find some good deals for India. But he will also find the beloved old shrine of Hindu nationalists deserted, the faithful long gone in search of other gods. .

By Pankaj Mishra Bloomberg

Related
 

Modi-Abe intimacy brings scant comfort

The increasing intimacy between Tokyo and New Delhi will bring at most psychological comfort to the two countries.
Source: Global Times | 2014-9-2 0:53:01

Modi draws support from Japan

Japan and India agreed to step up economic and security cooperation as Indian PM seeks to revitalize the lagging domestic economy.
Related post:

China: Abe´s Britain-Germany comparison inappropriate CCTV News - CNTV English Full video: Chinese FM Wang Yi addresses World Eco...

Monday, September 1, 2014

In defence of Merdeka

Independence has been achieved, yet has to be constantly defended, continuously renewed and expanded as the process of de-colonisation is on-going and new threats arise.

THIS week marks the beginning of our 58th year of Independence. Much has been done to entrench sovereignty and independence on our land. But much more needs to be done.

Colonialism did a comprehensive uprooting of traditional systems and replanted them with new ways, methods and systems to produce a chaotic and confusing amalgam of people, social patterns and economic modes.

We are still shaking off the vestiges of that colonialism, whose shadows still fall large. We are still in the process of building independent policies, structures and systems

This is so in post-colonial developing countries in general. As the leaders of the Group of 77 and China stated in their summit held in Bolivia recently, the process of de-colonisation is incomplete and on-going, even decades af­ter the winning of Independence.

That is a good reminder. In particular, the structures and levers of the global economy are still under the domination of the rich developed countries.

The former colonial masters may have let go of formal control of the colonies but they made sure to set up a system in which they could continue to control the important components of world finance, trade and economy.

For so many decades, even until now, the major economic and social trends and policies were set by the combination of the Interna­tional Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Group of 7 rich countries.

These policies, made by institutions based in Washington, became widely known as the “Washington Consensus”. Countries that were indebted especially had to abide by the rules, which were often against their own interests.

Some countries, including Malaysia, were fortunate enough not to have been caught in the debt trap and thus escaped the Washington Consensus. We had a close shave during the Asian financial crisis in 1997-99, but unlike other Asian countries, we did not have to borrow from the IMF, and could devise our own policies from the crisis.

Many other developing countries (almost a hundred) that fell under the IMF-World Bank spell could not chart their own policies, had their economies shaped the wrong way and their development postponed. Independence was much constrained, often present only in name.

Malaysia has been able to shape and re-shape its own policies. If mistakes were made, they could and can be corrected.

Years after Merdeka, the economy was still under British domination. The plantations, tin mines, banks, wholesale trade, industry, were mainly in foreign hands. In 1970, 70% of the corporate assets were owned by foreigners.

A strategic policy was designed to reduce the foreign share while boosting the local share, and to restructure the participation of the various local communities in the economy. Society is still debating the effects and implications of that policy and its implementation.

However, there is appreciation that a successful part of the policies was the wresting back of control over the natural resource-based sectors and obtaining national benefits.

Malaysia has been one of the richest expor­ters of commodities. It helped make Britain rich during colonial times and its companies still dominated the sector long after Merdeka.

Through a series of policies over decades, Malaysia took back ownership of the biggest plantation and mining companies (through the famous “dawn raid” at the London stock market). It signed production and revenue-sharing agreements with the international oil companies.

These policies opened the road for more of the revenues from our important commodities to be retained locally. They also became major sources of government revenue that financed development projects.

Value was then added to the raw materials through processing, refining and manufactu­ring. Rubber exported as gloves and tyres, palm oil exported as cooking oil and wood ex­­ported as furniture bring more revenue and jobs to the country than if they were exported in raw forms as latex, crude palm oil and timber.

Research and development as well as marketing institutions were created to find more efficient ways to produce new uses for the processed materials and more markets. In contrast, those developing countries that fell under IMF-World bank policies were not able to provide state support for their agriculture.

When foreign manufacturing and services firms entered, they were told to set up as joint ventures with local companies, with limits on equity. This could facilitate benefit-sharing and participation in the economy for locals.

Yet Malaysia still became a favourite location for global investors.

In the years leading to the mid-1990s, external debt built up, the current account of the balance of payments went into high deficit, and the financial sector was liberalised, which made the country vulnerable to external shocks.

The 1997-99 crisis taught the lesson that excessive debt, a wide current account deficit and too much financial liberalisation can lead to a major crisis.

In the 2008-2010 global crisis, Malaysia had built up enough defences (especially foreign reserves and balance of payments surpluses) to be resilient.

Economic growth has recovered, but care has to be taken to address the significant budget deficit and increase in foreign debt.

On the global front, developing countries that were fed up with dependence on the IMF and World Bank and their lack of reforms have created their own institutions, such as the Chiangmai Initiative and the BRICS Bank.

The objectives are laudable. Developing countries that need finance either to avoid a debt crisis or to fund development program­mes should have alternative sources that hopefully will have less conditions or more appropriate conditions attached to their loans. It is another big step in de-colonisation.

Needless to say there is much more to be done to safeguard Independence and to move forward on independent development pathways.

If only the state could be prevented from taking policies that place conditions on foreign firms, investors and speculators, the world would be free for those global corporate and financial giants to maximise their profits.

But if global binding rules are established to create such a world, then big corporations would again rule the world, backed by their governments. Then the governments of the developing countries would be unable to protect their own citizens, and a new battle for independence would have to be waged again.

Better to preserve the independence we have, and expand it, than to whittle away the gains and then having to fight old battles anew.

A lesson is that Merdeka has been achieved, but should not be taken for granted. It has to be constantly defended, renewed continuously and expanded. To Malaysia and Malaysians, Happy 58th year of Merdeka!

- Global Trends by Martin Khor > Martin Khor is executive director of the South Centre based in Geneva. You can e-mail him at director@southcenter.org. The views expressed here are entirely his own. The Star/Asia News Network

Related posts:


Malaysian raise the Jalur Gemilang during the Amanat Merdeka deliver by Datuk Seri Najib Razak at MATIC..-- M. Azhar Arif/The Star T...
Malaysia is poised to escape the middle-income trap, but also ready to fall back into it. Normally the middle-income trap refers to count...


I always get excited when I meet fellow Malaysians, whether at work or during social functions. - Lee Yee Thian Our sense of belonging ...

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Today our Malaysian National Day in pensive mood: Hate politics taking its toll!

Malaysian raise the Jalur Gemilang during the Amanat Merdeka deliver by Datuk Seri Najib Razak at MATIC..-- M. Azhar Arif/The Star

TODAY is our National Day but the mood in the country is pensive. This has been a year when the mood has been severely dampened by those who spew divisive remarks on a continuous basis.

TODAY is our National Day. I wish I could say that I woke up early to wave the Jalur Gemilang. And that my heart is bursting with pride because it is all pumped up with extra doses of patriotic fervour.

I do recall a time not too long ago when everyone was indeed eager to wave the flag. We even had little flags on our cars and there was a genuine spirit of patriotism. We needed no reminders that we are one as a nation.

Sad to say, the mood in my neighbourhood, and in the country overall, is pensive.

Please do not get me wrong. I am a patriot. And most of us, as citizens of this blessed land, do know what allegiance to the nation means. We not only love our nation but have full respect for the institutions that bind us together.

But on a day-to-day basis, this has been a year when the mood has been severely dampened by those who spew divisive remarks on a continuous basis.

From politicians who seek the limelight for all the wrong reasons to self-appointed champions of race and religion, these people have created an environment to embolden even the lesser-known individuals and instant NGOs to amplify their extremist views.

I dare say that I am more loyal than these people. Many of us wonder why they continue to find space in the media to arti­culate their outrageous views. The publicity given them by some media outlets is akin to providing oxygen to these dangerous elements.

A vibrant democracy should provide space for the healthy discourse of differing views and perspectives. We can certainly benefit by disagreeing without being disagreeable.

But hate politics does not deserve space.

I would like to put on record that like the majority of Malaysians, I am proud that we have come so far as a nation. In just over five decades, we have surely come a long way.

There were many naysayers when we achieved independence who did not give us much of a chance of making it. They predicted that the natives, as we were called, would end up fighting each other and the whole country would end up in chaos.

Well, they thought we would be like one of those countries in Central Africa which are forever locked in a civil war involving one ethnic group or another.

Malaysia has proven them wrong. Not only did we survive but we have progressed well and we remained intact too.

So what is it that disturbs me greatly this Merdeka?

Perhaps it is the sadness over the loss of the two Malaysia Airlines planes within the same year. The meaningless loss of innocent lives on board MH17 is so hard to bear even as we despair over the fate of MH370 where the plane has yet to be found.

It has been a horrible year indeed.

But it is also the never-ending, disturbing and offensive statements from extreme personalities. Many of us wonder why these people can get away with what they say. Shouldn’t they be charged with sedition or do they have powerful backers, as some have questioned?

Sadly, it is not just these politico-types but also ordinary Malaysians who post outrageous remarks on social media. They involve normal people, some of whom I thought I know well enough. But their inability to exercise some form of self-restraint and not add fuel to the fire is highly ­worrying.

No one is spared now. Thanks to social media, these people seem to believe that they can post and put up whatever comments they want without a second thought. They do not care if their sweeping comments affect the feelings of fellow Malaysians.

Everything seems to be fair game. While politicians are expected to take even the harshest criticisms in stride, there has always been an understanding that we do not undermine the various institutions that not only make Malaysia unique but also hold us together as a people.

Even the royalty has been targeted, and many of the remarks made are not only improper but outrightly seditious. It does not help that some politicians are leading by example. If they are in Thailand, they would be in jail now.

I am sure our founding fathers, if they were alive now, would have been shocked, if not saddened, by what they see of us today.

Yes, in terms of physical development and our standard of living, we have been a shining example. We have a huge middle class, unlike other neighbouring countries where the gap between the rich and poor is wide.

This is a country where people have no worries over the next meal although many are unfit because they eat too much. We spend huge sums of money to reduce weight and even bigger amounts to slim down.

We have also become a country of whiners. We complain over our high electricity bills but we want to sleep with the air-conditioners on, while wrapped up in our blankets. Of course, it is much easier to blame the government for increasing our electricity bills.

We should be glad that we have taken away preventive laws such as the Internal Security Act and the famous detention camp in Kamunting has closed down.

But, to some people, this seems to have opened the floodgates for unrestrained remarks, often laced with extreme racial elements, to flourish.

Many of us seem unable to articulate a point or a thought over an issue without dragging the racial element in.

Many of us also cannot draw the distinction between criticism and insult.

Some have become arrogant in their line of comment while some have become so thin-skinned and sensitive that they take offence easily, sometimes blowing up over a minor issue.

I grew up in Penang where places of worship were built next to each other. This is similar in many parts of the country too. We take pride in it. Now we have bureaucrats and politicians who tell us it’s not possible because it is sensitive.

Sensitive to who? The racially twisted bureaucrats and politicians themselves, perhaps? Real people have no issue with one another.

This is a multi-racial country even though the demographic landscape has changed drastically. A plural society is an asset, not a political liability. But we seem to have reached a point where many of us are frightened, not just shy, of upholding such values lest we be seen as going against our own community and religion.

Like it or not, there are certain realities that we, as Malaysians, must accept so we can be realistic in our expectations.

For a start, the Malays are the majority and they are Muslims. We must acknow­ledge and respect their deep reverence towards Islam, the race and the royalty.

But the Chinese and Indians are here to stay, so please stop these nonsensical pendatang remarks. Together with the many other races, and especially the original inhabitants of this land, we are all Malaysians.

We need to focus on real issues within our country, which include education, health, crime and a healthy business environment. Our priority must also be to ponder seriously on how to handle race relations, religious freedom and the sentiments of the people in Sabah and Sarawak who are an integral part of Malaysia.

We need to get our act right so we can compete efficiently as a member of the global community.

We should spend more time thinking, listening and reflecting instead of making silly remarks. We can help chart a better future for Malaysia. Then we will not only fly the flag on Merdeka Day but our heart will always beat as a Malaysian too, all the time.


By Wong Chun Wai On the beat -  The Star/Asia News Network > The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own..

Wong Chun Wai began his career as a journalist in Penang, and has served The Star for over 27 years in various capacities and roles. He is now the group's managing director/chief executive officer and formerly the group chief editor.

On The Beat made its debut on Feb 23 1997 and Chun Wai has penned the column weekly without a break, except for the occasional press holiday when the paper was not published. In May 2011, a compilation of selected articles of On The Beat was published as a book and launched in conjunction with his 50th birthday. Chun Wai also comments on current issues in The Star.


Related posts:.

I always get excited when I meet fellow Malaysians, whether at work or during social functions. - Lee Yee Thian Our sense of belonging ... 
Malaysia Airlines to cut 6,000 staff, new company to be formed 
 
Malaysia is poised to escape the middle-income trap, but also ready to fall back into it. Normally the middle-income trap refers to count...

Evaluate enemies and friends


Illustration: Liu Rui/GTChina must evaluate friends and enemies 

Since 2013, China has been engaging in "major power" diplomacy. In the past, the term "major powers" referred to countries such as the US, Japan, Russia, the UK and Brazil, while now the major power is China itself.

The shift in China's diplomatic status means the country's diplomatic approaches face a new challenge: Does diplomacy have to distinguish between enemies and friends?

Before China's non-alignment policy was raised in the report to the 12th CPC National Congress in 1982, China's diplomacy distinguished between enemies and friends.

In the 1950s, based on the different social systems, China categorized other countries into imperialist states, capitalist states, nationalist states and socialist ones.

In the following two decades, these countries were divided into the superpowers, developed countries and developing ones, given the international status of different countries.

These two categorizations differ in standards, but reflected the then diplomatic notion of distinguishing between enemies and friends.

The report to the 12th CPC National Congress also said that "the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence are applicable to our relations with all countries, including socialist countries."

From then, China began to discard the "enemies-or-friends" concept and focus on economic cooperation with all the countries based on an equal footing.

There have been some variations in China's diplomacy, particularly in relation to how it categorized other countries after the Tiananmen incident in 1989.

One means adopted in 1997 classified the countries into neighboring, developing and developed ones. In 2002, the sequence was changed into developed, neighboring and developing countries.

Such categorization adds flexibility to diplomatic principles and, as some believed, fits the globalization era and discards the Cold War mentality that stuck to the old way of distinguishing between enemies and friends.

However, such categorization and sequence also have their flaws. When a principle is too flexible, its guiding role is weakened.

For instance, both Cambodia and the Philippines are China's neighboring countries and belong to developing countries, but the latter can sometimes pose diplomatic trouble for China.

Similarly, Russia and Japan belong to the same category, but we can enhance strategic cooperation with Russia while isolating Japan politically.

In the following decade, the overall national strength of China will remain greater than that of all the other countries except the US. China has to shoulder more international responsibilities and maintain international order by providing public benefit, so as to maintain its own interests.

But if China doesn't distinguish between enemies and friends, it will find it difficult to do so.

Only when China is clear about which country it can hold responsible on certain occasions, or which country can enjoy more public benefits, can it make the right decision.

Any big country, when helping shape international order, will protect its friends rather than enemy countries. It will raise proposals beneficial for its partners rather than competitors, and provide public benefit for those playing by the rules rather than breaking the rules.

If we don't distinguish between enemies and friends, it will also be difficult for us to adopt the diplomatic principle of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness.

For example, politically we can get close to Russia and Cambodia but not Japan's Abe government or the Philippines' Aquino III government, because otherwise the latter two may dare to adopt even more hostile policies toward China.

Diplomatically, we can stick to the principle of credibility only with countries that we have established diplomatic ties with, but not with those who don't admit China's sovereignty or support the so-called "Taiwan independence." Economically, China can take the initiative to help developing countries rather than the US which has already entered the developed phase.

To build up an international environment that best works for China's rejuvenation, China's categorization of foreign countries can be based on interests.

We can classify all the countries into friendly, cooperative, ordinary or conflicting ones.

To friendly countries, China should lend a helping hand; to cooperative ones, it can offer some preferential policies. We should work on an equal footing with ordinary countries, while taking countermeasures to conflicting ones.

The US is the only country that is more powerful than China. We may consider listing China's relationship with it in a single category as "a new type of major power relationship."

It is a relationship between a rising country and a dominant one, and as the US is more powerful than China, the two should stay equal and be mutually beneficial, which is more favorable to the US. Therefore, this also reflects tolerance of China's foreign policies.

Since the Opium Wars in the 19th century, China has accumulated rich diplomatic experience to counter countries stronger than itself. But in modern times, it lacks the experience of dealing with countries weaker than itself. It tests China's diplomatic wisdom as whether or not to distinguish between enemies and friends.

By Yan Xuetong Viewpoint, Source: Global Times Published: 2014-8-27 18:58:02
The author is director of the Institute of Modern International Relations, Tsinghua University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Related post:

China and the US started a two-day meeting at the Pentagon on Wednesday to negotiate a code of conduct on the high seas, in the wake of...