Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Xi should do a reverse Yoon, and greet Yoon before Biden. Imagine the response in SKXi should pull an alpha move and only grant Biden a standing side meeting for a few minutes. This would be humiliating to Biden, especially after months of media coverage of Biden wanting a meeting with Xi at G20. The US conservatives would have field day since it proves their point that Xi really is Biden's boss.
TELSA is next!
Of course, that won't happen, but it would be so totally funny if it did.
TELSA is exporting cars from its China plant.
Wonder how many cars being exported by TELSA from its American plant? Would be interesting to know!?
Same old story.
After spending decades trying to implement Neo-Liberalism and globalization throughout the world, the United States government has reversed course, and is trying to stop any globalization they do not approve of.
Globalization, there was something in it for others. It was the win-win.
In China's dealings with ASEAN, it was always about the win-win. But as one anonymous ASEAN official remarked, "China always wants to do the win-win, which is good. But China always wins more!"
But there, that is the trick. The Americans were the first ones to sell the win-win, long before the Chinese, and since they were selling it, and knew more about it than anyone else, the Americans were able to win more than anyone else from globalization.
That, however, is still a key point, the win-win, there was something in it for everyone who wanted to participate. That was globalization.
With de-globalization, obviously there is no win-win, but the Americans still insist they win more (with de-globalization). The question is what is in it for the other guys?
No one knows. Hence, the reason why countries still maintain the most robust trade ties with China. It is still win-win with China. It is no longer win-win with America.
In fact, besides the obvious question of American de-globalization of what is in it for the other country, American de-globalization has quickly advanced to the point where there is not much in it for US companies, such as Nvidia and AMD, and probably others.
It is kind of remarkable to see this happen.
Therefore, I say, this containment of China by the United States, is a total crock, and all fake.
All these restrictions and provocations by the Americans against China, those are real. However, that just does not amount to much of anything at all.
It is just out of laziness and habit, that we call these US restrictions and provocations against China containment. We label those US actions as containment, but in reality, there is hardly any actual containment at all.
Blah, blah, blah.
Long story short.
There is nothing in de-globalization. What do you gain? In Europe, they gained nothing with their Russian decoupling.
With globalization, it is the win-win and you gain something. Russia gains nothing by de-globalizing with Europe, but gains a lot by increasing trade links with China, and the Far East in the energy trade.
This de-globalization strategy of the United States, is shaping up to be a loser, possibly in a couple of ways or more.
So to go totally perverse, then current logic of the world is clear. US provocations against China is an attempt to contain and de-globalize. But since de-globalization is bad for those who do it, then these US provocations are actually beneficial for China.
One side de-globalizes, the other side continues to globalize. One side will come out better than the other.
New Zealand may have finally jumped off its foreign policy tightrope act between China and the US. Last week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern effectively chose sides, leaping into the arms of the US, at the expense of the country's crucial relationship with China.
That's the growing consensus among observers of New Zealand's foreign policy, following Ardern's visit to the White House and her Government's strong stance against China's increased diplomatic presence in the Pacific region.
Blindly following traditional allies
Observers are now questioning whether Ardern's obsequence to American power will badly damage New Zealand's national interests, and there is criticism that the Government is "blindly following" the US against the interests of both New Zealand and the Pacific.There is no doubt that China believes Ardern is now siding with Washington over Beijing. China's Ambassador to Wellington, Wang Xiaolong, has written a letter to Ardern accusing the Government of "blindly following others", and suggesting she is making a big mistake in her attempts to reposition the country as a stronger diplomatic and military ally of the United States.
Former prime minister Helen Clark has also hit out using similar language, in a subtle yet sharp critique of how the country's foreign policy is shifting under Ardern. Responding to Ardern's closer ties with Washington, Clark says: "The key issue in maintaining the substance and perception of NZ foreign policy will be to ensure that NZ is making its own decisions based on its own values and interests and not blindly following others".
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/ZPUD6TQCWAYYAEF7P3PXBTKOJA.jpg "Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern meets US President Joe Biden in the Oval Office at The White House on June 1. Photo / Supplied")
Will Ardern integrate New Zealand into a more global Nato?
Clark's comments were reported this week by political journalist Richard Harman. He also reports that Ardern is now planning to attend the next Nato summit in Madrid, which would be a strong provocation to ChinaAt a time when Nato appears to be expanding and is increasing a US-led global alliance against China and Russia, New Zealand's increased involvement with this military alliance would be a further sign that Ardern has abandoned any vestiges of neutrality in favour of an alliance against China.
In his report Harman suggests that rather than just attending the summit to discuss the issue of Ukraine, Ardern could end up endorsing the expansion of Nato, or some version of it, into the Pacific region, in order to stave off China. As Harman writes, "If Ardern does do that, then New Zealand's 'independent' foreign policy is likely to be tested, as it has not been since 1985."
Criticisms of NZ siding with the US over China
This week the New Zealand Herald published an editorial that also bemoaned that "Ardern signed up to a joint statement that nailed New Zealand's colours squarely to the US mast on security and strategic concerns." The newspaper warned this shift was not necessarily in the interests of New Zealand or stability in the Pacific: "there is still value in the country treading a more careful, independent path on China than Australia does. New Zealand has been able to maintain a good relationship with Beijing and it is best to keep up a constructive dialogue".Leftwing political commentator Josie Pagani argued this week that Ardern was obviously heavied by the US into taking a more belligerent stance on China than the Government would normally take. She perceptively points out that, although the joint Ardern-Biden statement was focused on condemning China, when the Beehive put out their own version of the statement in a press release, the anti-China statements were absent.
In terms of how to deal with China, Pagani observes that, although countries like New Zealand and the US are always keen to lecture smaller countries about what they should be doing, in this case we should be the ones listening to the Pacific Islands: "instead of offering advice, we should be humble enough to learn from a region that has been figuring out how to navigate the superpower squeeze for longer than we have."
Pagani, who has worked for a long time on Pacific and development aid, says we should be aware that the Pacific are actually being offered good deals from China, and so we shouldn't be so dismissive. If anything, New Zealand should be partnering with Pacific countries in how they orientate to offers of help, instead of just "chest-thumping on China".
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/644CBBTMPHVC4LHIWCORXCGVFM.jpg "China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi appears on stage at the Pacific Islands Foreign Ministers' meeting with Fiji's Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama on May 30 in Suva, Fiji. Photo / AP")
In favour of partnerships in the Pacific
Waikato University's Alexander Gillespie also says that the current reset in the Pacific comes in the context of New Zealand's neglect of those countries, especially in terms of aid spending. He points out that this country spends much less than the agreed target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income. In fact, New Zealand falls well short, with only 0.26 per cent, well down on the high point reached of 0.52 per cent. New Zealand needs to "put its money where its mouth is" instead of complaining about China giving assistance.Gillespie argues in favour of partnerships and co-operation with China in the Pacific. He says: "Chinese influence in the Pacific is not necessarily something that must be 'countered'. For the good of the region, countries should seek ways to work together, especially given that aid to the Pacific is often fragmented, volatile, unpredictable and opaque."
If anything, Gillespie says New Zealand should be trying to ensure the "region is not militarised". But this would mean taking on not just China, but also the US, Australia, and indeed reversing our own escalation of military spending on arms for the region.
It's not just voices of the political left like Clark, Pagani and Gillespie that are critical of the Labour Government choosing to throw its lot in with the US against China. Former National prime minister John Key is the other high-profile figure warning against the path that Ardern is taking New Zealand down.
Key told Newshub this week that Beijing will be present in the Pacific forever and it's a "waste of time" trying to get them out. He said New Zealand should be "working with them instead." Similarly, National's foreign spokesman Gerry Brownlee said that trade with China should be the "starting point" in navigating the issues in the Pacific.
Other experts with a strong knowledge of China are making pleas for the Government and the more hawkish commentators to calm down. For instance, New Zealander Warrick Cleine, who is the CEO of KPMG in Vietnam and Cambodia, says that it's strange and disturbing to hear New Zealand commentators "beating the drums of war and the public being primed for conflict".
Cleine says that his experience in Asia has led him to believe that there's no need for the "level of alarmism in New Zealand". He argues that the experience of other Asian countries is that a good relationship can be had with China, and independent foreign policy can be maintained.
Today Māori leader and commentator John Tamihere has also spoken out in favour of New Zealand taking a more independent stance in the US vs China tensions and he stands up for the right of Pacific nations to do deals with China without receiving criticisms. He says, "to beat up on the Chinese for doing business with sovereign nations is just racism", and argues that the evidence doesn't stake up for the New Zealand narrative about "the nasty Chinese and the nice Yanks and Aussies".
Tamihere says that "it is about time we shaped our own foreign policy rather than being dragged along by others", and by way of warning refers to Australia becoming "the 51st State of the USA".
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/YVN7DZYQX3FV2DZDIL3WU6XHGU.jpg "Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern meets Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on April 1, 2019. Photo / Supplied")
Sinophobia and drumbeats of war
There is definitely a rising drumbeat of war amongst many political commentators, as well as academic international relations specialists, who tend to gravitate towards support for the United States. Canterbury University's Anne-Marie Brady believes China is trying to physically isolate New Zealand by dominating the Pacific Islands, and her view seems to be catching on with many others.see link for rest of article...
I wish I had his job security.
And some people thought that a total embargo on China is feasible...
It is what it is. Countries that were part and are the legacies of the colonial powers like Britain, France, Germany, and other European countries will almost always side with their fellow Anglo-Saxon countries like America. So this recent action by the PM of New Zealand should come as no surprise to most of us here and especially to China's leadership.
New Zealand may have finally jumped off its foreign policy tightrope act between China and the US. Last week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern effectively chose sides, leaping into the arms of the US, at the expense of the country's crucial relationship with China.
That's the growing consensus among observers of New Zealand's foreign policy, following Ardern's visit to the White House and her Government's strong stance against China's increased diplomatic presence in the Pacific region.
Blindly following traditional allies
Observers are now questioning whether Ardern's obsequence to American power will badly damage New Zealand's national interests, and there is criticism that the Government is "blindly following" the US against the interests of both New Zealand and the Pacific.
There is no doubt that China believes Ardern is now siding with Washington over Beijing. China's Ambassador to Wellington, Wang Xiaolong, has written a letter to Ardern accusing the Government of "blindly following others", and suggesting she is making a big mistake in her attempts to reposition the country as a stronger diplomatic and military ally of the United States.
Former prime minister Helen Clark has also hit out using similar language, in a subtle yet sharp critique of how the country's foreign policy is shifting under Ardern. Responding to Ardern's closer ties with Washington, Clark says: "The key issue in maintaining the substance and perception of NZ foreign policy will be to ensure that NZ is making its own decisions based on its own values and interests and not blindly following others".
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern meets US President Joe Biden in the Oval Office at The White House on June 1. Photo / Supplied
Will Ardern integrate New Zealand into a more global Nato?
Clark's comments were reported this week by political journalist Richard Harman. He also reports that Ardern is now planning to attend the next Nato summit in Madrid, which would be a strong provocation to China
At a time when Nato appears to be expanding and is increasing a US-led global alliance against China and Russia, New Zealand's increased involvement with this military alliance would be a further sign that Ardern has abandoned any vestiges of neutrality in favour of an alliance against China.
In his report Harman suggests that rather than just attending the summit to discuss the issue of Ukraine, Ardern could end up endorsing the expansion of Nato, or some version of it, into the Pacific region, in order to stave off China. As Harman writes, "If Ardern does do that, then New Zealand's 'independent' foreign policy is likely to be tested, as it has not been since 1985."
Criticisms of NZ siding with the US over China
This week the New Zealand Herald published an editorial that also bemoaned that "Ardern signed up to a joint statement that nailed New Zealand's colours squarely to the US mast on security and strategic concerns." The newspaper warned this shift was not necessarily in the interests of New Zealand or stability in the Pacific: "there is still value in the country treading a more careful, independent path on China than Australia does. New Zealand has been able to maintain a good relationship with Beijing and it is best to keep up a constructive dialogue".
Leftwing political commentator Josie Pagani argued this week that Ardern was obviously heavied by the US into taking a more belligerent stance on China than the Government would normally take. She perceptively points out that, although the joint Ardern-Biden statement was focused on condemning China, when the Beehive put out their own version of the statement in a press release, the anti-China statements were absent.
In terms of how to deal with China, Pagani observes that, although countries like New Zealand and the US are always keen to lecture smaller countries about what they should be doing, in this case we should be the ones listening to the Pacific Islands: "instead of offering advice, we should be humble enough to learn from a region that has been figuring out how to navigate the superpower squeeze for longer than we have."
Pagani, who has worked for a long time on Pacific and development aid, says we should be aware that the Pacific are actually being offered good deals from China, and so we shouldn't be so dismissive. If anything, New Zealand should be partnering with Pacific countries in how they orientate to offers of help, instead of just "chest-thumping on China".
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi appears on stage at the Pacific Islands Foreign Ministers' meeting with Fiji's Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama on May 30 in Suva, Fiji. Photo / AP
I think for the most part Chinese leadership is keenly aware of this dynamic along with the cultural affinities that countries like NZ share with America, after all NZ is part of the 5 eyes intelligence so it would have been very foolish and naive that economic entanglement or relationship would have been more than sufficient enough to nudge these countries closer to China.
These western countries love to make money off China and off Chinese people but feel dirty, disgusted, slimy at the same time for various reasons like cultural, societal, economic and political governance and China being the big bad commie isn't going to endear her to anyone in the west.
If NZ wants to become part of NATO lite then they simply have to be reminded that if worst comes to worst that island country would simply ceased to exist no two ways about it. The same can be said of Australia, Canada, America, U.K. and the rest of these western bullies that seek to rewind the past back to the present.
These countries want to do business with China but with them doing the dictating and setting up the rules for China not the other way around. They don't want equality despite their bullshit rhetoric, they want the upper hand always.
Some say that the pen is mightier than a sword, but if I cut your hands, feet and stab your mouth let's see if you can still write anything again. Likewise, if these countries want to make China the enemy then be prepared to be the enemy.
Last edited:
I mean, even for the most simplest of sheeple a là slava ukropa it becomes evident that when prices rise, you will become poor.
The only thing that baffles me is that it took over 6 months to realise that the european governments have had and still are shitting on their voters wellbeing.