Hong Kong's social problems stem from British rule, faces risk of Beijing rule as UK's ‘toothless threat’ against China

https://youtu.be/OISpOGZJ5pA

China urges UK officials to stop making wrong remarks on Hong Kong
https://youtu.be/BHdWP-8_OF4

The Chinese way of ruling
https://youtu.be/BPV8mBAiuZ0

Graffiti reading ‘Cancel Functional Constituencies’ is seen on lawmaker desks after protesters entered and vandalised the chamber of the Legislative Council building in Hong Kong in the early hours of July 2. — Photos: Bloomberg

LAST Monday, I watched the live telecast of protests in Hong Kong in horror as hundreds of protesters forced their way into the Legislative Council building, ransacking the chamber and defacing the emblem of the Hong Kong Government.

July 1 marked the 22nd anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, when British colonial rule and humiliation ended, but it turned out to be one of the city’s darkest days.Protesters were seen waving large Union Jack flags in the middle of the chamber, searching for documents and destroying computers. Watching the TV footage was worrying and mind-boggling. Western media, including CNN, reported that there was no leader – but to me, the chaos seemed organized.

Hong Kong, which had been under British colonial rule for 155 years before 1997, is now under the jurisdiction of China. Hence, the display of the British flag lent credence to Beijing’s accusation that Britain was one of the Western forces behind the series of protests in Hong Kong.

In vandalising the building and its interior, protestors showed a complete disregard for the rule of law – the core value of keeping public order in this international financial centre.I continued to monitor the news on various international news channels until past midnight, when the armed police finally moved in in heavy trucks to clear the rioters. A key reason the police stayed away from confronting the rioters was due to a directive from China’s President Xi Jinping to Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam that “there must not be blood”, according to local newspaper Apple Daily.

Before marching to the Legislature on Monday, protestors had already taken to the streets previously in an attempt to disrupt a flag raising ceremony carried out by officials of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (as Hong Kong is formally known under China’s rule), but they left after a scuffle with the police that left many hurt.Peaceful pro-democracy street marches on July 1 have been an acceptable annual routine ever since the 1997 handover. This year, however, the situation was tense due to massive demonstrations in earlier weeks against the tabling of an amendment Bill to Hong Kong’s extradition law.

The Bill was first proposed by the Hong Kong government in February 2019 in response to a 2018 murder of a woman by her boyfriend while the Hong Kong couple was visiting Taiwan. Since Hong Kong has no extradition treaty with Taiwan, which is part of China, the Hong Kong boyfriend could not be sent to Taiwan to face the law.

The Bill, based on United Nations model used in the West, is meant to target fugitives suspected of one or more serious crimes. But it rules out targetting people based on political and religious grounds. In essence, the Bill is meant to prevent Hong Kong from becoming a sanctuary for fugitives and criminals.

However, anti-China activists have argued that this Bill will facilitate the sending of suspects to Beijing, whose law is harsher. They say it will destroy the Western rule of law and freedom now enjoyed by people in Hong Kong.

This wider interpretation has spread fear among ordinary residents, who are grappling with the high cost of living and housing in Hong Kong. The main objective of the Bill seems to have been overlooked completely.

Among the vocal protestors are pro-democracy activists, advocates of Hong Kong independence, China critics and dissidents, opposition politicians, and people who conduct shady commercial deals and crimes on the mainland. Also unhappy with this Bill, according to several YouTube narratives, are Taiwan and foreign governments with regional intelligence headquarters in Hong Kong who fear being rooted out from this centrally located “paradise” which gives them much needed “immunity”. Perhaps this is the reason why Western forces have been supportive of the protests.The upheaval has forced Lam to suspend tabling of the Bill.

On June 10, as protests were fast gathering momentum, the state-owned Global Times said in an editorial that, “Some international forces have increasingly collaborated with the opposition in Hong Kong.... Washington has been particularly active in meddling in Hong Kong affairs, and some radical opposition members in Hong Kong are (working) hand-in-glove with the US,” it said.Global Times reported that two opposition groups visited the US in March and May to notify the Americans about the amendment to the extradition law.

After these visits, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Bill threatens the rule of law in Hong Kong. The British and Canadian governments also issued a joint statement disapproving of the Bill.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has, on several occasions, publicly warned foreign forces not to meddle in Hong Kong’s affairs.

The violence of the July 1 protests may have embarrassed Westerners who support Hong Kong demonstrators. But some attributed the violence to a lack of response from the government to opposition demands.

Despite widespread condemnation of the July 1 crimes, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that the Hong Kong protesters “have inspired the world” and their courage should not be ignored.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt tweeted on Monday: “... want to stress UK support for Hong Kong and its freedoms is unwavering on this anniversary day. No violence is acceptable, but HK people must preserve their right to peaceful protest.”

The next day Hunt warned Beijing that the Sino-British Joint Declaration, signed in 1984 and setting out the terms for Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty, was “to be honoured ... and if it isn’t there will be serious consequences”.

As stated in the Joint Declaration and under the “one country, two systems” principle, socialism practised in mainland China would not be extended to Hong Kong. Instead, Hong Kong would continue its capitalist system and way of life for 50 years after 1997.

In anger, China responded by lodging protests with Britain over Hunt’s warning.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Beijing had made “stern representations” over the comments, and accused Hunt of still harbouring “colonial illusions”.

“We called on the British, especially Hunt, to stop being overconfident and grossly interfering in Hong Kong affairs. This is doomed to fail,” Geng said.

Hong Kong became a British colony at the end of the First Opium War in 1842. Although it was returned to China in 1997, British and Western influence is still strong.

China’s state media reminded Hong Kong’s citizens of the disastrous consequences of past “revolutions” promoted in many countries by the West. When these countries were in turmoil and needed economic assistance, the Western countries shied away, various media said in their commentaries and editorials.

There were also reminders that the semi-autonomous territory’s destiny is tied to the mainland, and that Beijing has looked after the interest of Hong Kong well.

It is not known whether the arrest of people responsible for the July 1 riots will spark further major protests, but if Lam resigns and the situation gets out of control, Article 18 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law could be invoked to allow China’s military forces to take control, according to an analysis from the mainland.

Article 18 of the Basic Law reads: “In the event that the National People’s Congress decides to declare a state of war or, by reason of turmoil within Hong Kong that endangers national unity or security and is beyond the control of the government of the region, decides that Hong Kong is in a state of emergency, the Central Government may issue an order applying the relevant national laws in Hong Kong.”

“For those people demanding the resignation of Carrie Lam, you had better not allow her to quit, as her stepping down can be construed as Hong Kong being out of control,” says one YouTube commentator, Tey Kok Seng.

Another, Mei Han, says in a video: “Stop the ‘one country two systems’ principle immediately, take back Hong Kong now,” adding that she is organising an online petition that has collected more than 10,000 “support” clicks.

China has been patient with Hong Kong’s demands and protests, but it is also time for Hong Kong’s residents to respect the principle of “one country, two systems” that has brought prosperity and stability to the territory.

Source link 

 

UK's Hunt makes toothless threat against China

 

During an interview Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt still refused to directly criticize the violent protesters who stormed and vandalized the Hong Kong Legislative Council. Instead, he superficially stated that the UK condemns "all violence" and warned China again. He did not elaborate on the "serious consequences" that he previously warned China that it may face, but said the UK is "keeping options open" over China.

Almost all analyses believe Hunt is putting on an air. Nobody believes the UK will send its only aircraft carrier to China's coast. Nor would anyone believe the UK will punish Beijing at the cost of hurting trade with China. The UK has been dwarfed by China in military and trade. Hunt's inappropriate statements make many British people nervous: Will Beijing cancel an order from the UK to warn British politicians?

If China-UK relations deteriorate, will expelling Chinese diplomats become a card for London? This was the way that the Theresa May government used to deal with Moscow when a former Russian spy was poisoned in the UK. BBC reporters asked Hunt about the possibility for expelling diplomats. But it seems more like these BBC reporters, who bully politicians for pleasure, were using the unreliable option to make things difficult for Hunt.

Launching a diplomatic war against China leads to nowhere. European countries will not stand by London on the Hong Kong issue. By worsening diplomatic relations with China, the UK will only isolate itself.

What's important is that Beijing has done nothing wrong on the Hong Kong issue. It is obvious to all that China persists in the "one country, two systems" policy, and Hong Kong's system is different from the mainland's. The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, proposed by Hong Kong regional government, was a small cause of the unrest. It was politicized and magnified by opposition factions. The situation escalated according to the logic under Hong Kong's system, not that of the mainland. But such storming and vandalizing is not acceptable under Hong Kong's system or any system worldwide.

Instead of blaming violent protesters, Hunt directed his ire against Beijing, which is based on his selfish interests to win the election. Hunt wants to defeat Boris Johnson. In charge of diplomacy, Hunt believes the Hong Kong issue is a chance that dropped into his and the UK's lap. But this is not the 19th century when the Opium War broke out. The UK has gone past its prime.

Hunt knew that Beijing would sniff at his threat of "serious consequences." But he still said it because he needed to play in front of voters. This is political fraud. Hunt obviously believes that the British people can be manipulated like a flock of sheep.

But Hunt's stunt has no good effect. Many British people are more worried whether Hunt's words would lead to "serious consequences" from China. Purpose and ability should match in diplomatic strategy, but Hunt is obviously outwardly strong and inwardly weak. Even the British people think his performance is amusing.

In a few short years, one minute the UK calls its relations with China the "Golden Era," and the next minute it warns China of "serious consequences." Although these statements are from different administrations and politicians, the UK still shows inconsistency in policy. The country also swung from side to side on Brexit. The UK's politics have become politicians' coffers and plots. They are undermining the UK's image.

Under such circumstances, we should not be too serious when dealing with the UK. Regardless of whether it shows a friendly or an opportunistic gesture, we should remind ourselves this will not be its first or last attitude toward China, and by saying that we mean it will be in a relatively short time, to be specific.

Source link 

 

Related posts:

A destiny tied to China - Tackling it the British way

Edit

American China Experts open letter against Trump's China policy; Hong Kong attacks a political act

‘China is Not an Enemy’ Says Open Letter Signed by 100 American China Experts to Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump. Photo: VCG

Experts tell Trump that China is not the enemy, so who is?

https://youtu.be/1hf5VAKG-TU

 A hundred American academics, diplomats and experts from the military and business communities signed an open letter calling on President Donald Trump to reexamine his policy toward China. The letter was published Wednesday in the Washington Post.

In the letter, titled “China is Not an Enemy,” the signatories express concern over the negative orientation of the Trump administration’s China policy.

“We do not believe Beijing is an economic enemy or an existential national security threat that must be confronted in every sphere,” the experts say in the letter.

The five authors are M. Taylor Fravel, a professor at MIT; J. Stapleton Roy, a former U.S. ambassador to China; Michael D. Swaine of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Susan A. Thornton, the former assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs; and Ezra Vogel, a professor at the Harvard University Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies.

The deterioration of the bilateral relationship is not in the interests of the U.S. or the rest of the world, and Trump’s attempt to “decouple China from the global economy” will damage the U.S. global reputation, according to the letter.

“The United States cannot significantly slow China’s rise without damaging itself,” the authors write.

“The fear that Beijing will replace the United States as the global leader is exaggerated,” the letter says. “Most other countries have no interest in such an outcome, and it is not clear that Beijing itself sees this goal as necessary or feasible.”

The key message of the letter is that the U.S. should not make China its enemy, especially in a rash manner, said Li Cheng, director of the Brookings Institution's John L. Thornton China Center, who signed the letter.

Signatories are representative as they hold different views toward China — some are pro-China and others are more critical, Li said. But they all disagree with the Trump administration’s China policy, Li said.

“I won’t say we are the majority,” Li said. “Maybe we are the minority that can’t change some people’s extreme views, but among those who reexamine the U.S. policy on China, many have started reconsideration.” Additional scholars have endorsed the letter after its publication online, he said.

A better policy orientation for the U.S. would focus on building long-term alliances that support economic and security objectives based on a realistic assessment of China’s ideology, interests, goals and actions, the experts write.

“We believe that the large number of signers of this open letter clearly indicates that there is no single Washington consensus endorsing an overall adversarial stance toward China, as some believe exists,” the letter concludes.

Views toward China vary significantly among different social groups in the U.S. and also inside the government, Li said.

“There is a need for different voices to let China know that there is no consensus on America’s China policy, and there won’t be one for a long time,” Li said.

Most of the signers are older experts who don’t represent the views of younger Americans, some observers said. Although the open letter originally targeted senior scholars with strong academic backgrounds, Li said it’s inappropriate to argue that younger scholars view China in a more adversarial way. A public poll showed that Americans under 29 are actually friendlier toward China, Li said.

Older scholars and officials have a better understanding of China after witnessing the country’s changes over recent decades, but members of younger generations will also know China better as time goes by, Li said.

“A proper discussion of China policy is very important, and it shouldn’t be limited inside the government,” Li said. Although it is unclear whether the letter will influence policy, he said it sends a strong message that “the views toward China between the U.S. government and scholars are different.”

Since last year, the two countries have been locked in a trade war, slapping tit-for-tat tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of each other’s goods. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump agreed last week at a G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, to resume trade talks. The U.S. also agreed not to impose new tariffs on Chinese imports.

This story was updated with Li’s comments.

By Qing Ying, Ren Qiuyu and Han Wei

Contact reporter Ren Qiuyu (qiuyuren@caixin.com); Han Wei (weihan@caixin.com)

Source link 

 

Read more:

 

Trump urged to  take 'wiser'  approach with  Beijing in open letter from China experts in US The Straits Times

US actions hurting relations with China, 100 academics, policy ...

 

Letter to exert positive impact but unlikely to be taken seriously by White House: experts

An open letter to US President Donald Trump signed by scores of Asia specialists including former US diplomats and military officers has revealed that rational voices are emerging to challenge paranoid ideas, Chinese experts noted on Thursday.

China insists all trade war tariffs must be eliminated as part of a trade deal

https://youtu.be/IrWn9zl2N24

'Hong Kong attacks a political act' - Asean+ | The Star Online

https://youtu.be/dUtOjDf1iyY

https://youtu.be/Vu3Z2gsOzvI

https://youtu.be/GSZ73pNdsFg

UK's Hunt makes toothless threat against China

 

During an interview Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt still refused to directly criticize the violent protesters who stormed and vandalized the Hong Kong Legislative Council. Instead, he superficially stated that the UK condemns "all violence" and warned China again. He did not elaborate on the "serious consequences" that he previously warned China that it may face, but said the UK is "keeping options open" over China.

Almost all analyses believe Hunt is putting on an air. Nobody believes the UK will send its only aircraft carrier to China's coast. Nor would anyone believe the UK will punish Beijing at the cost of hurting trade with China. The UK has been dwarfed by China in military and trade. Hunt's inappropriate statements make many British people nervous: Will Beijing cancel an order from the UK to warn British politicians?

If China-UK relations deteriorate, will expelling Chinese diplomats become a card for London? This was the way that the Theresa May government used to deal with Moscow when a former Russian spy was poisoned in the UK. BBC reporters asked Hunt about the possibility for expelling diplomats. But it seems more like these BBC reporters, who bully politicians for pleasure, were using the unreliable option to make things difficult for Hunt.

Launching a diplomatic war against China leads to nowhere. European countries will not stand by London on the Hong Kong issue. By worsening diplomatic relations with China, the UK will only isolate itself.

What's important is that Beijing has done nothing wrong on the Hong Kong issue. It is obvious to all that China persists in the "one country, two systems" policy, and Hong Kong's system is different from the mainland's. The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, proposed by Hong Kong regional government, was a small cause of the unrest. It was politicized and magnified by opposition factions. The situation escalated according to the logic under Hong Kong's system, not that of the mainland. But such storming and vandalizing is not acceptable under Hong Kong's system or any system worldwide.

Instead of blaming violent protesters, Hunt directed his ire against Beijing, which is based on his selfish interests to win the election. Hunt wants to defeat Boris Johnson. In charge of diplomacy, Hunt believes the Hong Kong issue is a chance that dropped into his and the UK's lap. But this is not the 19th century when the Opium War broke out. The UK has gone past its prime.

Hunt knew that Beijing would sniff at his threat of "serious consequences." But he still said it because he needed to play in front of voters. This is political fraud. Hunt obviously believes that the British people can be manipulated like a flock of sheep.

But Hunt's stunt has no good effect. Many British people are more worried whether Hunt's words would lead to "serious consequences" from China. Purpose and ability should match in diplomatic strategy, but Hunt is obviously outwardly strong and inwardly weak. Even the British people think his performance is amusing.

In a few short years, one minute the UK calls its relations with China the "Golden Era," and the next minute it warns China of "serious consequences." Although these statements are from different administrations and politicians, the UK still shows inconsistency in policy. The country also swung from side to side on Brexit. The UK's politics have become politicians' coffers and plots. They are undermining the UK's image.

Under such circumstances, we should not be too serious when dealing with the UK. Regardless of whether it shows a friendly or an opportunistic gesture, we should remind ourselves this will not be its first or last attitude toward China, and by saying that we mean it will be in a relatively short time, to be specific. - Global Times

RELATED ARTICLES:

• Hunt’s warning on HK sours UK’s image
• Video: Hunt’s threat and warning to HK and China’s central govt is a disgrace to British diplomacy
• Hunt’s warning on HK sours UK’s image

Read more:

How is China reshaping its role in the global economy?

https://youtu.be/bQGZJpqKuzo



Related posts:

American anti-China Hawks ignited the trade war, are Trump's advisors

 

A destiny tied to China - Tackling it the British way

Penang all set to make waves as EIA approved, work of second phase of PSR has begun

Ministry has given the green light to the Penang government for the EIA report on the Penang South Reclamation scheme near Teluk Kumbar. The project will take off early next year.


GEORGE TOWN: The state government has secured approval for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report of the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) scheme near Teluk Kumbar.

It is learnt that the Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change Ministry has given the green light, paving the way for the three man-made islands totalling 1,800ha to take shape off the southern coast of the island.

The report incorporates 23 conditions proposed by the relevant government agencies and non-governmental organisations. It is prepared by project delivery partner SRS Consortium.

Among the key conditions are compensating more than 900 fishermen with low-cost houses in the Bayan Lepas area, planting artificial corals to sustain the marine ecosystem around the islands, and sourcing the sand for the reclamation from legitimate sites.

Sources told The Star that SRS Consortium would start reclaiming the first island measuring 930ha in the first quarter of 2020. It will take about three years to complete the first island. The cost to reclaim is about RM60 per square foot.

SRS Consortium will call for a tender to reclaim the three islands in the third quarter of this year.

Sources said the state government would sell some state land via an open tender exercise, while SRS Consortium will internally generate the seed funds to raise about RM2bil to start the reclamation of the first island.

The reclamation for the second and third island will commence when SRS has raised sufficient funds from the sale of the reclaimed land. For serving as the project delivery partner, SRS Consortium will be paid a 6% fee based on the RM46bil construction cost.

However, the state government is negotiating with SRS to reduce it.

More than RM70bil is expected to be raised from the sale of the three man-made islands, enough to spearhead the state’s economic development for the next 30 years.

About 75% of the three islands are for sale via open tender.

Some RM46bil from the targeted revenue will be used for the construction of the RM9bil light rail transit (LRT) line, the RM9.6bil Pan Island Link 1 (PIL 1), and other supporting infrastructure projects under the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).fina

Presently, the price of industrial land on Penang island is around RM70psf-RM200psf, depending on its status as leasehold or freehold land. However, as the industrial lots on the proposed man-made island are freehold land, the pricing is about RM200psf.

When the reclamation of the islands starts in 2020, there could be a 10% appreciation.

On the three islands – Island A (930ha), Island B (445ha) and Island C (323ha) – the plan is to construct a dam and three power plants for the islands and develop industrial, residential properties and state government administrative buildings.

Chow was earlier quoted as saying that Island A is seen as a continuation and expansion of the Bayan Lepas Free Industrial Zone (FIZ) while Island B will be “a playground for city planners and architects to give their best design” with a tram system and green spaces.

Island C is meant for a mixed development project.

Source link 


Read more:

Chow: Work on second phase of PSR has begun - Nation

https://youtu.be/TrfcwvrcG14 

The above Video is about Penang South Reclamation (PSR).  We thank Prof. Dato' Dr Zubir and Puan Zuraini for coming forward to explain the actual situation at Penang south.  Prof. Zubir is an expert on marine science and the former Director of Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies at Universiti Sains Malaysia. He shares about his study at the PSR area and his survey among the fishermen.   Puan Zuraini is the officer at Pusat Perkhidmatan Setempat Nelayan at Penang south. Drawing from her own upbringing as a daughter of fisherman, she shares about her engagement with local fishermen in PSR area who are hoping that the project will provide job opportunities to them and bring development to the rural area.

Related posts:

It’s time for Penang to reinvent itself; RM70bil to be raised from the 3 man-made islands to finance LRT, PIL infrastruture under PTMP

American anti-China Hawks ignited the trade war, are Trump's advisors

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

US President-elect Donald Trump appointed Peter Navarro, a strident critic of China, as head of the new National Trade Council on Wednesday. Most of the Trump's views in his accusation against China during and after the election are influenced by Navarro. Moreover, Trump's special adviser Carl Icahn and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross also take a hard line on the trade with China. The possibility of a potential trade war between China and the US after Trump takes office has come under heated discussion.

Trump’s Top China Expert Isn’t a China Expert

Peter Navarro doesn't speak Chinese, and has scant in-country experience. Should that matter?

By Melissa Chan

| March 13, 2017, 5:40 PM

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/13/peter-navarro-profile-national-trade-council-donald-trump-china-expert/

University of California at Irvine Economics Professor Peter Navarro, head of White House National Trade Council nominee for president-elect Donald Trump, arrives in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, U.S., on Thursday, Jan. 5, 2017. A top congressional ally to Trump said Thursday that Republicans will repeal Obamacare, including some funding provisions, quickly while a replacement plan is due in "six to eight months." Photographer: Albin Lohr-Jones/Pool via https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/13/peter-navarro-profile-national-trade-council-donald-trump-china-expert/

US China hawk Peter Navarro back on guest list for Donald Trump ...

The issue needs to be considered in the backdrop of a major adjustment of the US policies toward China. At present, there is a glaring contrast between the economic prosperity and political stability in China and the economic downturn and political division in the US, which stings the US policy elites who are steadfast defenders of the US hegemony and its role as the world leader. Those elites tend to believe that the increasingly powerful China has not made the changes approved by the US and is trying to upend the international order shaped by the US.

Thus, it has now gradually become an expectation for the incoming US government to discard the long-standing engagement policy and adopt tougher or more confrontational policies toward China instead.

Against this backdrop, the trade topics closely associated with employment and welfare have become more sensitive but quite effective tools for the China hawks to create an unfriendly public opinion against China. The China-US trade disputes are no longer simply economic topics, but have strong political and strategic implications.

The manufacturing industry is not only the foundation for the US economic recovery, but also the key to solving the unemployment problem and guaranteeing social stability. The imbalance of China-US economic and trade relationship is considered by economists represented by Navarro as the critical reason for the weakening US manufacturing industry. They believe that the current close trade ties have boosted China's rapid development, whereas the hundreds of billions of dollars of US trade deficit with China has led to the current economic woes in the US. They also blame the US manufacturing companies that moved their factories to China for the high domestic unemployment rate.

In other words, the field of trade, which has long been regarded as mutually beneficial, is now considered by advisers of the incoming US government to be detrimental to their country's interests. The US maintains that a major trade policy adjustment needs to be urgently pushed forward to give China a head-on blow.

Although bilateral trade generally works by following WTO rules, the US policy elites, represented by Navarro, maintain that their country's serious inherent economic problems are caused by both China, which fails to address bilateral trade problems impartially, and the US government, which neglects the American public's demands. They keep overstating China's negative role to the American public, and thus have made full preparation for a big policy change toward China in the coming years.

Given the current policymaking atmosphere in the US as well as Trump's picks of advisers, the US has a strong desire to make a major confrontational policy adjustment in its trade with China in the future. However, it still remains uncertain if the adjustment will directly lead to a trade war.

The high interdependence of bilateral trade indicates that any form of trade war provoked by the US will ultimately hurt itself. It is probably difficult for the Trump team to figure out how much self-damage their country is able to withstand.

During the election campaign, Trump denounced the greediness of Wall Street magnates and promised to create new jobs, but, ironically, the officials he appointed after winning the election mostly came from the Wall Street.

China's economic power is no longer as it was before, and its defining power over bilateral relations in trade and all the other aspects is stronger than ever. It is impossible for China to sit back and let the US destroy the mutually beneficial situation in trade. Instead, China will firmly push forward the future bilateral ties under the concept of building a new type of major power relationship.

In contrast to the uncertain US trade policies toward China, China's policies toward the US are clear and concise: get rid of any barriers and push forward bilateral relations in a stable and mutually beneficial direction. The evolution of China-US relationship has always been a process of moving forward and addressing various conflicts along the way. It is hoped "the China-US trade war" will only be a verbal clash, instead of a clash in real action.

By Li Haidong Source:Global Times Published: 2016/12/25 13:43:39 The author is a professor with the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Source link 
 

US anti-China hawks may yet scupper trade deal  

Right after the G20 summit in Japan, US Senator Marco Rubio made the headlines again by calling for legislation to continue the ban on Huawei, even after US President Donald Trump said he would lift some of the restrictions on US companies doing business with the Chinese tech giant.
 

Senator Rubio Prepares To Blast China ...

forbes.com

Rubio is a salient representative of the US political extreme. Some US politicians appear to take advantage of the split in US society and are using their extreme political views to gain more voters as well as please different political groups. This actually reflects the increasingly prominent malfunction of US politics.


It is an important reason why China is concerned that the US-launched trade war against China will not end in the short term.

We believe there are rational people who know China well at the US government's decision-making level. Even so, lawmakers like Rubio have gone too far. They are not messing with China but rather wearing down the credibility of US politics.

The US political system is becoming increasingly flawed. Many politicians deliberately act up to firmly oppose anything that would benefit China for the sake of being anti-China. That the political landscape is becoming extreme in the US is providing these politicians with the opportunity to play to their base if they show an open anti-China stance.

Rubio is one such politician. He paints himself as being hostile to China to draw attention. Despite the fact that the trade war and the Huawei ban are harming the interests of the US, Rubio insists on this excessively tough stance toward China because that could spark controversies which could end up favoring him.

This is what Rubio, an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, needs to fulfill his political ambitions. Such narrow-minded thinking has de facto escalated the US-launched trade war against China.

Rubio doesn't understand China and probably barely knows China's history. But taking advantage of being anti-China, he can create hot debates and make headlines, and thus gain more assets for his political career.

Even though people who don't know much about the world's second-largest economy can be a senator in the US, it is a joke that someone like Rubio can pretend to be a China hand and comment on China's policies. This is one of the key reasons for the ratcheted-up tensions between China and the US.

The fundamental split in the US political system provides openings for hawkish politicians who have long been hostile toward China. The US is now in the throes of the 2020 presidential campaign, when candidates vie with each other to make outrageous remarks to appeal to their supporters.

This marked increase in radicals in US politics makes it much more difficult for the US government to function normally and for Republicans and Democrats to reach compromises, especially on major issues.

Even though there are signs of China-US trade frictions turning around, as the US political system will not fundamentally change in the short term, China must remain vigilant and prepare for a long-term trade war, in case the hawks gain the upper hand.

By Xu Hailin Source:Global Times Published: 2019/6/30 19:53:39

Source link 



Related post:

The hegemonic anxiety of America First

Parcel rent bills mailing soon

Stratified property owners given till December 31 to settle dues for 2019

Chow (second right) with (from right) Jagdeep Singh, State Land and Mines office director Akmar Omar and State Secretary Datuk Seri Farizan Darus, showing the new bills for the parcel rent in Komtar, Penang.

OWNERS of stratified properties will now have to pay parcel rent directly to their respective district and land offices.

Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said the billing for parcel rent, replacing quit rent, would be sent out to all parcel owners next month through their respective management corporations.

“Previously, it was paid by the respective management corporations of stratified properties.

“Since the bills will be sent out late, parcel owners are given until end of this year to pay up although the deadline is usually May 31 each year,” he told a press conference at Komtar on Friday.

Chow said the parcel rent came into effect since January this year.

He said the rates for parcel rent would be based on the size of each unit, while quit rent was based on the total plot of land which the building was built on.

“Parcel owners will need to update their addresses with the respective district and land offices when paying their parcel rent this year,” he said, adding that the parcel rent billing for next year will be sent to their addresses.

Citing an example, Chow said the total quit rent collected from a specific stratified property last year was RM28,268.

“The collection in parcel rent for the same property will be lesser at RM24,239, as it will not take into account common areas, unlike for quit rent,” he said.

State housing, town, country plan­­ning and local government committee chairman Jagdeep Singh Deo, who was also present, said the arrears for quit rent has amounted to RM65mil to date.

Parcel owners are advised to update their mailing addresses at the land and district office or online at etanah.penang.gov.my

Source link 


Related posts:

Five challenges young Malaysians face with home ownership

 

Flat property market seen for Penang

Resilient values: Geh believes that both landed and high-rise units in prime locations will hold their values. Research house sa..

It’s time for Penang to reinvent itself; RM70bil to be raised from the 3 man-made islands to finance LRT, PIL infrastruture under PTMP