"The International Cultural Festival facilitates cross-cultural exchanges and mutual understanding among young people from different countries, allowing them to explore core values in different cultural contexts," Georgian Ambassador to China Archil Kalandia said at the opening ceremony of 2023 Peking University International Culture Festival.
The festival successfully kicked off on October 21 in Beijing, titled "Meet the World at PKU," and included participation from students from more than 100 countries and regions. Ambassadors from Jordan, Venezuela, Grenada, Cuba, Thailand, New Zealand, Pakistan, and Mexico also attended the opening ceremony.
Ambassador Kalandia expressed a belief that cooperation in the field of higher education is an important direction to promote international exchanges and cooperation. He encouraged teachers and students from the two countries to participate in a variety of international exchange programs to promote mutual exchanges and mutual understanding, and hoped that Peking University would play a more active role in strengthening educational cooperation between the two countries.
This year's festival featured a number of activities, including a themed garden tour, an international food festival at the world food court, and a chess tour of Yanyuan in Peking University.
Among them, the "Meet the World at PKU" theme garden set up more than 50 booths covering 47 countries and regions from five continents. At the booths, international students from different countries elaborately displayed their unique histories and cultures, allowing teachers and students to appreciate the social customs of different countries.
Launched in 2004, the Peking University International Culture Festival will hold a series of activities from October to December, such as a singing contest to feature the top 10 singers among international students, international youth speeches, the Chinese speech contest for international students, a movie view party, and a photography exhibition.
BRICS expansion, a sign of the rise of the Global South, marks the decline of US hegemony and its ideological bedrock, American exceptionalism. American exceptionalism posits that the US is the "best" country in the world and portrays US dominance as a permanent feature of global politics. Presumed allies and adversaries alike are expected to follow the economic, political and military dictates of US policymakers no matter the consequences for their own sovereign development.
The 15th BRICS Summit in late August came after months of increased global interest in expanding the mechanism. By the end of the summit, BRICS added six new members: Argentina, Ethiopia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Iran. The expansion undermined Western mainstream media reports hyping divisions within BRICS.
The six new members of BRICS are a powerful signifier of a multipolar world order where no single nation "calls the shots." While BRICS does not target third countries, BRICS expansion is, in part, a response to the perils that US hegemony has inflicted on the world. Iran, for example, has experienced decades of crippling unilateral sanctions from the US that have caused economic instability and social hardship nationally and globally. That Iran was admitted to the first multi-country expansion of BRICS is a testament to the mechanism's opposition to unilateral sanctions and its commitment to peaceful development.
Argentina's admission to BRICS cannot be separated from the US' foreign policy of treating Latin America as its "backyard." Neoliberal reforms pushed by the US under the "Washington Consensus" have contributed greatly to the impoverishment of Argentina's economy. Powerful Wall Street hedge funds called "vulture funds" have exploited Argentina's debt burden by siphoning the nation's wealth with the support of the US judicial system. Argentina's BRICS membership is a major step toward economic sovereignty.
Ethiopia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE's addition to BRICS represents a significant shift in the geopolitical calculus on the African continent and West Asia. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US declared "the end of history" and moved quickly to secure its hegemonic interests in these resource-rich regions of the world. This led to devastating invasions of sovereign countries and persistent attempts to develop deep and unequal relationships with "friendly" governments. Its geopolitical relationship with Saudi Arabia has been one of the most important for the US. The US has dominated the world energy market through the purchase of Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves in US dollars, the principal reserve currency in the world since the end of World War II.
Egypt, Ethiopia and the UAE have been important to the US' broader interests of maintaining dominance over North Africa and West Asia. US interference in the affairs of these nations and the broader region played a role in their interest in joining BRICS. In the case of Ethiopia, the Biden administration has threatened sanctions over the country's internal conflict in the Tigray region. African and West Asian states have all received stern warnings from the US that continued trade with Russia during the Ukraine conflict could lead to sanctions and other forms of punishment.
The truth is, however, that BRICS is not simply a rejection of US policy. Global South countries share common interests and in many cases complementary economies. BRICS not only offers win-win alternatives to the US-led financial system, but also follows a policy of non-interference in other countries' internal affairs. It is therefore in the interests of the Global South to diversify relations regardless of the status of the relationship that individual countries possess with the US. In fact, it is within their right under international law.
BRICS is just one of many examples of the growing strength of the multipolar world. Multilateral mechanisms in all spheres of development are also growing, from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to China-led projects like the Belt and Road Initiative. BRICS' historic expansion thus injects even more hope and inspiration into a world order that has seen so much devastation from US-led unipolarity and its ideological foundation of American exceptionalism.
As the Russia-Ukraine war drags on, the Western public has been told that this or that wonder weapon system will turn the tide of the conflict. This has included Javelins, HIMARS, Leopards, Storm Shadow, Bradleys, F-16s, and now depleted uranium munitions, none of which has fundamentally changed the tide of the conflict.
After the slow progress of Kiev's counteroffensive this summer, it is immediately apparent that high-tech equipment is not ruling the day but logistics and supply chains. It is not about who has the shiniest toys but who has the most troops, tanks and artillery and can deploy them quickly. On that front, Russia clearly dwarfs Ukraine, which is a much smaller country. Due to the fact that the West is evidently not going to join in this conflict directly, and there is growing resentment from the Western public against military aid to Kiev, people are wondering if the two sides will reach a peaceful settlement.
We are constantly told, however, that the latter possibility is somehow wrong or immoral because it will fundamentally grant Russia a victory. Well, morals aside, the reality clearly shows that Moscow is achieving its military objectives. Winning on the battlefield naturally translates to a more favorable negotiating position, and believing otherwise is to live in a realm of make-believe.
Some people idealistically (or opportunistically) believe that the West should support Ukraine's futile fight against a far superior military power, even though that support will not challenge the eventual outcome and will lead to more death and destruction. Others believe death and destruction are undesirable outcomes; thus, Western leaders should pivot to a negotiations-first approach. The former view dominates the news media while the latter has gained a huge following on social media.
What's also interesting about the difference between these two views and how they've fielded an audience is also about who's backing them. People who hold the latter view are constantly accused - without evidence - of being funded by the Russian government or, as some US intelligence reports suggest, unwitting assets. Meanwhile, a recent analysis by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft found that think tanks funded by defense industry ？contractors are cited 85 percent of the time in Ukraine-related content - and media outlets rarely cite these conflicts of interest.
So, which of these viewpoints is compromised? I believe it's safe to say the latter. And that's important because we need to understand the dynamic here: The media is quite literally operating as a paid advertiser for defense contractors. Not only do some outlets consistently peddle that some particular line of products will turn the tide of battle (they will not), but they also cite compromised experts that push a line conducive to selling more defense products. Rinse and repeat.
This is what is so sinister about modern conflict. When you look at the decades that the West was entrenched in Afghanistan, the current Ukraine quagmire or a potential situation in Taiwan island, it's not about any serious geopolitical strategy or values. It's just about making a handful of companies richer. Worse still is that this is public, taxpayer money going to this cabal - and, to be sure, primarily working-class funds when taken in conjunction with the historic Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts, which cut taxes for the wealthy.
It would be extraordinarily naive to believe that defense contractors and the people they fund have incentives that supersede the profit motive. Instead, these companies profit from death and human suffering, and they're enabled by information laundering operations known as think tanks, which are cited without any scrutiny from journalists who are either lazy or also compromised.
Two years ago this week, the AUKUS pact was announced. When US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stood together in San Diego on March 14, 2023, to announce arrangements for the Australian acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs), many Australians were dumbstruck. They were as dumbstruck as they were when the initial announcement was made 18 months earlier by Biden and past prime ministers Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison in the dying stages of a discredited Australian government. Their dismay was shared by many of Australia's neighbors in Asia and the Pacific.
The plan consists of three stages. The first will involve increased rotational deployment, effectively basing, of US (from this year) and UK (from 2027) SSNs in Australia. The second is the Australian purchase of between three and five US Virginia-class SSNs, commencing in the early 2030s. The third is the design and construction of a new AUKUS-SSN, to be built in the UK and Australia using US weapons systems and a US/UK-built nuclear reactor, to be available in the 2040s and 50s.
The eye-watering projected A$368 billion ($244.06 billion) cost is 10 times greater than Australia's largest previous military acquisition, even without the seemingly inevitable cost blowout. It is, in fact, a greater cost than any other national project in Australia's history. The plan was hatched and developed in secret with a complete absence of democratic process and accountability. There has been no detailed parliamentary examination, no White Paper, and no ministerial statements explaining a rigorous assessment of the comparative risks, benefits and costs of the plan and alternatives, in the context of a long-term comprehensive security plan for the country. Albanese in opposition agreed in less than 24 hours to sign up to the plan hatched by Morrison, his predecessor as prime minister. This was, apparently, essentially for the mundane political imperative not to be wedged and portrayed as weak on national security and the US alliance in the lead-up to a federal election.
That Labor has embraced and aggressively prosecuted such a fraught, costly and long-term plan hatched by the previous government, rather than let it die a natural death at the end of the 18-month review period, is incomprehensible for many Australians who had hoped for much better from their new government.
The AUKUS plan takes Australia back to the old racist, colonial and sub-imperial approach of "forward defense" - long-range power projection far beyond Australia's surroundings, as "deputy sheriff" in concert with a white great ally and protector, previously the UK, now the US. Forward defense justified Australia's past involvement in wars in the Korean Peninsula, Malaysia and especially Vietnam. The submarines are to be deployed with conventionally armed Tomahawk cruise missiles and will be technologically dependent on the US.
The strategic implications of the plan are profound. In the context of escalating enmeshment with US military forces and plans, which Australia's Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Richard Marles has characterized as no longer about "interoperability" but "interchangeability," the plan is the flagship for a profound loss of sovereignty and independence by Australia. Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating described the AUKUS submarine plan as "the worst international decision by an Australian government since the former Labor leader, Billy Hughes, sought to introduce conscription to augment Australian forces in World War One."
AUKUS nuclear submarines will lock Australia into US plans to contain and potentially militarily confront China, and (together with missile defense, to which Australia also contributes via the Pine Gap base in central Australia) put at risk China's second-strike nuclear capability. Regional tensions in Northeast and Southeast Asia, the risk of armed conflict, including between nuclear-armed states, notably the US and China, and the potential for such conflict to escalate to nuclear war can only grow. All the available evidence suggests that if the threshold of nuclear weapons use is again crossed, rapid escalation of nuclear war will follow.
As the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed last year, a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And as G20 leaders just reiterated, "The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible." The survival and health of all humanity and the biosphere demand that nuclear weapons be eliminated. This is the only way to ensure that they are never used under any circumstances. Nothing can justify increasing the danger of nuclear war.
Another negative consequence of the AUKUS SSN plan relates to nuclear nonproliferation and fissile material control. With the planned purchase of second-hand US Virginia-class submarines, Australia will become the first country without nuclear weapons to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. Regrettably, like current and planned US and UK submarines, any Australian SSN will be fueled by highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is directly usable in nuclear weapons. This is entirely avoidable. France and China have fueled their nuclear submarines with low-enriched uranium, which cannot be directly used for nuclear weapons.
The AUKUS plan will put somewhere between eight and 20 nuclear weapons worth of HEU per submarine on stealthy mobile platforms, the whereabouts of which are designed to be secret over many months at sea, where it is effectively unverifiable. This flies in the face of commendable international efforts in recent decades, which the US, UK and Australia contributed to, to end the production of fissile materials and reduce and eliminate the use of HEU.
Already nuclear nonproliferation and the consistent application of nuclear safeguards are under severe stress in multiple countries. Australia looks set to become the first country to prize open a previously dormant loophole in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) which envisages the temporary removal of nuclear material from comprehensive safeguards for non-explosive military purposes. It is unlikely to be the last.
It is not too late for democratic, accountable, evidence-based common sense to curtail the fraught AUKUS nuclear submarine plan and avoid the huge opportunity costs for human and environmental security and the grave dangers it fuels.
The author is a board member and immediate past co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and founding chair of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has been facing a headache recently: a constant low approval rating. Japanese media outlet Mainichi Shimbun reported on Monday that the approval rating for Kishida's cabinet stood at 25 percent in a recent nationwide public opinion poll conducted by the newspaper, tying the record low backing his administration saw in December 2022.
A week beforehand, Kishida reshuffled his cabinet and executives of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), with 11 ministers taking on cabinet posts for the first time, while six remain in place. The new cabinet also includes five women among the 19 total positions, which is considered to be a selling point for boosting Kishida's support rate. Judging from past, the approval rating for the cabinet often sees an obvious increase after a reshuffle, but the revamp failed to achieve such an effect this time, reflecting structural problems in the Kishida administration.
First, there was no pressing need for a reshuffle of the cabinet. The revamp this time seems to have infused new blood into the cabinet, but there has been no change in key positions, such as chief cabinet secretary, finance minister and minister of economy, trade and industry. Meanwhile, Kishida has retained Toshimitsu Motegi as his ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) secretary general and Taro Aso as vice president, which means that the structure of the regime generally remains unchanged and current policies will continue.
In addition to Tetsuro Nomura, minister of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, who was replaced in the reshuffle due to the controversy over calling the Fukushima nuclear wastewater "contaminated," Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Seiji Kihara was replaced because of alleged scandals. But Kihara was soon appointed to the post of acting secretary-general of the LDP and special advisor to the chairperson of the Policy Research Council. This is just a change from governmental to party post.
Second, the cabinet reshuffle was only intended to complete the distribution of factional interests. After being elected president of the LDP, Kishida proposed that party officials rather than the president should be limited to one term of one year and only up to three consecutive terms. In this way, the LDP is bound to face a reshuffle every year. Kishida kept the positions of Aso and Motegi, but the issue of the appointment of other senior party members is still a very difficult matter for Kishida. Taking into account the balance of the major factions in the LDP, Kishida had to swap the positions of some members of the party and cabinet.
At the same time, the LDP has seen a considerable number of party members who are qualified to enter the cabinet but don't have the chance to because of Shinzo Abe's stable leadership since 2012. This pushed Kishida into the cabinet reshuffle. In other words, it is more of a coordination of the top party and government officials and an adjustment to satisfy the interests of different party factions.
Third, Kishida's reshuffle failed to bring about major policy changes. His nepotism and closed-mindedness are what Japanese public opinion has particularly criticized. As far as his policies are concerned, Kishida said during his campaign for the leadership that people's voices should be heard; but what we see more in the process of policy formulation and implementation are his subjective assertions. For example, before the nuclear-contaminated wastewater dumping began, although Kishida visited Fukushima to inspect the area, he did not meet with or listen to the voices of the fishing communities in Fukushima Prefecture.
According to public opinion polls conducted by several media outlets, what the Japanese public questions most is Kishida's lack of leadership skills. The cabinet reshuffle did not touch on the essence of the problem, which is the crux of Kishida's low approval rating even after the revamp. Instead of focusing on gaining people's trust, Kishida seems to put his mind toward the distribution of political interests and the balance of power of party factions, so as to lay the foundation for his reelection in next year's LDP leadership election.
The 10th China-European Union High-Level Economic and Trade Dialogue will be held on Monday in Beijing. As the highest-level dialogue mechanism in the field of trade and economic cooperation between China and the EU and one of the "three pillars" of China-EU relations, the Dialogue has always been the main channel for the two sides to resolve misunderstandings and differences through the promotion of economic and trade cooperation. The Dialogue resumed offline for the first time in three years is a positive signal for the improvement of China-EU relations.
For both China and Europe, this year's Dialogue is different from the previous nine ones. At present, the two sides are obviously facing a greater number of issues, disputes, disruptions and challenges in the field of economic and trade cooperation compared to the past, while the total volume of trade between China and Europe has reached more than 800 billion euros ($853 billion), a new high that involves huge interests. This highlights the urgency for China and Europe to meet halfway and address these problems. Some already existing and newly emerged problems during the COVID-19 pandemic will also be discussed during the 10th China-European Union High-Level Economic and Trade Dialogue.
The dispute and division points between China and Europe on economic and trade issues are obvious. Executive Vice President of the European Commission and Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis, who came to China to co-chair the Dialogue, talked about the main concern of the European side during his visit to China in the past two days, which is the "very unbalanced" trade with China. Last year, the trade deficit between the two sides reached nearly 400 billion euros, and EU Ambassador to China Jorge Toledo called it "the highest in the history of mankind" with exaggeration.
It is well-known that the causes of the trade deficit are very complex. China is not willing to see the trade deficit grow too huge and has always hoped that the two sides will work together to push for a trade balance. In this way, the bilateral trade can be more sustainable. However, the European side simply attributes this to China's "trade barriers," which is completely untrue and unhelpful in solving the problem.
From the perspective of the Chinese side, what we see is completely different from the European side. The EU has been talking about "de-risking" on various occasions for a long time, and officially launched the European Economic Security Strategy in June this year, which is essentially a systematic "de-risking" strategy. Whether it is the recent announcement by the EU to launch an anti-subsidy investigation against Chinese electric vehicles, or the statement in June claiming that Chinese 5G suppliers Huawei and ZTE pose "materially higher risks than other 5G suppliers" and threatening to take corresponding measures, as well as the successively introduced European Chips Act, Foreign Subsidies Regulation, and EU's draft Critical Raw Materials Act, etc., all these acts are examples of trade protectionism. In other words, the European side has labeled acts and policies of trade protectionism as "de-risking," and the two can be considered equivalent in practice.
The European side has repeatedly assured the Chinese side that "de-risking" does not mean "decoupling." We believe that they are sincere in saying this. However, we cannot accept and strongly oppose the use of trade protectionism to "de-risk." The EU has always been an advocate of globalization and free trade. In the face of global changes, it needs to take practical actions to prove that it has not changed and learned from the mistakes made by Donald Trump.
It needs to be emphasized that having differences is completely normal, which also reflects the necessity of high-level dialogue between China and Europe on economic and trade issues. The key is to prevent the escalation and deterioration of these differences into conflicts and confrontations. Dialogue requires sincerity and the genuine expression of each party's positions and interests. More importantly, it is essential to seek common ground and solutions to resolve differences and problems based on this foundation. If dialogue only sees participants talk past each other, it loses its main significance. As some European individuals have pointed out, the worst thing for China and Europe in the current situation is to stop talking to each other and enter into a logic of group confrontation.
In terms of China-Europe economic and trade issues, the frontline enterprises from both China and Europe that are involved should have the most say. Some in-depth investigations by Western media have found that while European imports from China have declined, investment by European companies in China has increased. It is obvious that European companies have the most first-hand experience with whether the Chinese market is open or not. However, we have noticed that when making major economic and trade decisions regarding China, the EU is increasingly disregarding the opinions and interests of European companies. In this Dialogue, we hope that the EU could fully consider the feelings of European companies, break free from the constraints of general securitization and politicization, and resolve each other's concerns through dialogue and consultation. This is one of the most valuable experiences in the development of China-Europe relations and should not be overlooked in the current situation.
There have been signs of easing tensions in China-Australia relations recently, with the holding of the China-Australia High-Level Dialogue in September and a potential trip to China by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese later this year. To what extent can China-Australia ties be repaired? Will the Albanese government give pragmatic cooperation a priority? Colin Mackerras (Mackerras), a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and world-renowned sinologist, shared his insights with Global Times (GT) reporter Su Yaxuan.
GT: To what extent can China-Australia ties be repaired? And what kind of relationship would be most beneficial to Australia?
Mackerras: I think it's a good thing that there are signs of improvement. If we have more trade, that's a good thing. I hope we can make some agreements that will help both sides. I don't think it's going to go back to the way it was before. I say this mainly because of these other things that Americans seem to be doing. For instance, the US, UK and Australia agreed on a nuclear-powered submarine project. What that does is take away our independence to some extent as well, and it ties the US and Australia together. Although it could be argued that it's not against China, it seems to me that it is and the Americans designed it to be just that, against China.
I think that's extremely unfortunate. Australia is heavily dependent on the Americans. In a context where the US doesn't want us to be friendly with China, they tend to be very hostile, and I think that's very unfortunate and very unfair. Australia is giving signs that it wants to be friends with China. At the same time, it's also digging up unfounded criticisms against China. That's unfair and unnecessary.
When you're talking about relations, you can talk about geopolitical relations, but you can also talk about people-to-people relations. I've now been to China more times than I can count since I first went there in 1964. I love going to China. I have a lot of friends there.
We can develop these people-to-people relations in many different ways. Students can go to school in another country. Scholars from both countries can conduct joint research. But also, you can have students coming from China to Australia and from Australia to China. I think tourism is a very interesting phenomenon, it can be economic, but I think it can also be people-to-people. When people go to another country as tourists, they're interested in its culture, they learn about its culture, they meet people, they make friends.
Despite what the Australian government is doing and despite the policy it has toward the Americans, which I am very much against, we can still make good friends with China. We can still have good people-to-people relationships. We can still receive Chinese students and Australian students can go to China, and we can also improve tourism. I'm very optimistic about all of this.
GT: How do you think the trade and economic ties between the two countries will develop in the years to come? Will the Albanese government view pragmatic cooperation as a priority to help bolster Australia's economy?
Mackerras: I think Albanese will develop economic trade and ties. I know there have been a few problems which people have talked about a lot here in Australia, but I don't see them as being fundamentally impossible to solve. With a bit of goodwill on both sides, I expect them to be solved gradually over time which would be good for both countries. Australia's economy is very closely aligned with China's at the moment. I don't want Australia to trade with other countries at the expense of trading with China. I think it's very valuable for Australia to trade with China and I expect that to happen and continue to happen.
GT: What are the main biases that currently exist in the West toward China? What do we most need to break? How should we do it?
Mackerras: It seems to me that the most difficult area is that the West is determined to see China as a threat. The reason is it wants to stay on top and it's not willing to let anyone else challenge its hegemony. It doesn't want this multipolar world. China often talks about this multipolar world, and it is not the only one. Most people seem to want a multipolar world. But the Americans and the West are determined not to have that because they think it is against them. They want to be No.1 and everyone else should do what they're told.
I think that's the main bias, but there are other biases too, because the Western media tend to put everything that happens in China in a negative light. Here in Australia, we have the Murdoch Press journals, like The Australian, and there are others, like the Fairfax Press and they mostly seem to put a negative spin on everything China does.
The media in Australia is currently indulging in a sort of triumphalism that China's economic success can't last. That seems to me to be very wrong. Looking at the big picture, China's economy is still growing well and will recover from present difficulties.
But as for how you're going to get over this, I don't know, but I do think promoting people-to-people relationships is very helpful indeed and an excellent way to go.
Right after the surprise attack by Hamas on Israel on Saturday, US President Joe Biden vowed that his administration's support for Israel's security was "rock solid and unwavering" and that assistance was "on its way," with additional help forthcoming. The US has announced that it was moving an aircraft carrier strike group and military aircraft closer to Israel as a strong gesture of support.
However, what we should anticipate is more chaos from the US political circle as the conflict persists. Niu Xinchun, a research fellow at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times that this is mainly a deterrent to prevent Iran from taking action amid this crisis.
According to Lü Xiang, a US studies research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the support of the Biden administration for Israel appears to be more moral in nature. He believes that Washington has not shown the determination to take decisive action, nor has it presented a clear action plan.
Currently, the main focus of discussion in US political circles regarding the new round of conflict in the Gaza Strip is whether to attach Ukraine funding to a request for urgent aid to Israel as a strategy to pass both spending priorities. While the White House is considering this move, House Republicans warn sharply against it.
In terms of giving aid to Israel, the difference between the two parties is not as great when compared with giving aid to Ukraine. The US recently has already seen a heated debate over giving aid to Ukraine. Because most Republicans push for a significant reduction in Ukrainian aid, the US Congress last week had to remove Ukraine funding from a massive military spending bill to avoid a potential government shutdown. Linking the two aid requests once again shows fractured and desperate US politics.
Moreover, GOP politicians have taken the opportunity of the current situation in the Gaza Strip to vigorously attack the Democrats, especially the Biden administration. Republican candidates that want to unseat Biden quickly began to blame him for the crisis. In response, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused the Republicans of "playing politics" by attacking Biden. Obviously, the eruption of the Palestine-Israel conflict continues to fuel the growing polarization of the US bipartisanship.
This new round of the Palestine-Israel conflict shows that to seek peace in the Middle East, it is impossible to skip the tension between Palestine and Israel, a time bomb in the region. In its Middle East policy, the Biden administration has been proactively pushing for a détente between Saudi Arabia and Israel before next year's presidential election, aiming to boost his votes. But now, the escalation of the situation in the Middle East will, without question, hinder such a process, making Biden's plan wishful thinking.
As many people in the US criticized, the Biden administration's inability to manage the US' relationship with Iran has intensified the conflict between the two countries, instead of easing it.
Some observers worry that the conflict will distract attention from the war in Ukraine, and the US' support for Ukraine has already wavered, as war fatigue haunts the country. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll has shown that support for supplying weapons to Ukraine is declining among Americans of both political parties. It is difficult for the US to "fight a two-front war" with its limited capacity of providing aid to foreign countries. And if the US planned to intervene in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in any kind of form, it could be difficult for the Biden administration to wind things up - We still remember how US forces withdrew from Afghanistan helter-skelter two years ago.
Huawei is to hold a high-profile new product launch event on Monday afternoon, which is expected to be the launch of a series of products including Huawei Smart Screen V5 Pro and Huawei MatePad Pro 13.2-inch flagship tablet, according to media reports.
However, insiders told the Global Times that there won’t be too many details of the closely-watched Mate 60 Pro phone series to be unveiled at the event, which has generated buzz among Chinese consumers for weeks after an unexpected debut on August 29, with some hailing the phone as representing a significant chip breakthrough.
The planned launch on Monday has drawn “unprecedented” attention across China, attracting the live broadcast and live-streaming of more than 100 media outlets. On Monday morning, Huawei-related “concept” stocks were active, with many jumping by 10 percent, hitting their daily limit.
Industry observers were anticipating a formal detailing of the phone's specs and in particular the chipsets in the phone, which reportedly utilizes the Kirin 9000S chip, featuring either 7-nm or 5-nm process technology. Huawei has kept tight-lipped about the capabilities of the chip.
On August 29, Huawei surprised the market by kicking off early presales of Mate 60 Pro smartphone series ahead of Apple’s annual big launch event. Since then, Mate 60 Pro has been a big seller across the country.
Consumers have been queuing up to grab a mobile phone outside Huawei’s offline stores.
Monday also marks the two-year return of Meng Wanzhou in 2021. Meng, now a rotating chairperson of Huawei, was arrested by Canadian authorities in December 2018 under the request of the US government.
Some netizens said a stronger Huawei returning to the center stage of global tech innovation may be considered as "a slap in the face" to the US government's ruthless suppression and attack on the leading Chinese tech company, especially as the planned event date marks two years of Meng's safe return from Canada to China.
Looking ahead, Huawei founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei said in a recent interview that US sanctions on Huawei provided both pressure and impetus. “Huawei may encounter more difficulties, but at the same time becomes more prosperous too,” Ren said.
