Share This

Showing posts with label Bunn Nagara. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bunn Nagara. Show all posts

Sunday, February 27, 2022

Checkmated over Ukraine; Is Ukraine a metaverse nightmare?

 Cornered: Ukrainian armoured vehicles blocking a street in Kyiv as Russian troops stormed toward Ukraine’s capital on Saturday. – AP Nato's actions have made it's Western allies incapable of doing better for Ukraine than Ukraine can do its own relations with Russia

WHEN the wilfully unstoppable force of Nato expansion hits the steadfastly immovable object of Russian national security, war erupts.
`
By February 24 when Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Moscow’s challenges became exposed and grew more acute.
`
Russia cannot hold Ukraine in any sense as resentment to its incursion swells. There can be no assurance Russia can succeed in whatever it seeks to do to Kiev.
`
As in all military interventions, moving in is always easier than pulling out – which must eventually happen. And then what?
`
All disputes must conclude in negotiations, especially between neighbours, and it is now harder to negotiate. Meanwhile Russia is cast as the sole villain, so an invasion could not have been its preferred option.
`
As a power play it is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions and superpower dimensions. Ukraine and Nato may have top billing but the US and Russia are the key actors.
`
The 1947 Dunkirk Treaty between Britain and France was a contingency agreement against German or Soviet aggression. This grew to include the Benelux countries and then the US and six others to become today’s North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
`
By 1955 Nato expanded to include WWII foe Germany, leaving the Soviet Union out in the cold. Moscow then established its Warsaw Pact alliance in trying to achieve some balance.
`
Since then, Moscow stayed in Nato’s sights on the other side of the fence. Nato’s first Secretary-General Hastings Ismay described its role as “keeping the US in, Germany down, and Russia out.”
`
Nato is a Cold War device that was not dismantled after the Cold War but has instead grown. But the official rhetoric in the early 1990s was of consolidation with a few contemplating dissolution.
`
As the Soviet Union was collapsing in 1991, Nato officials from the US, Britain, France and Germany repeatedly assured Moscow that Nato would not expand. Nato had become the most serious organised challenge to Russian national security.
`
US Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Seitz said expansion of membership would not happen “either officially or unofficially.” His British counterpart added that expansion was “unacceptable”.
`
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher agreed and said so. Then Nato’s expansion happened.
`
When Russia complained, Nato stalwarts said any agreement was only verbal and not written down, implying that what they said could not be trusted. Later Nato claimed there had not even been a verbal agreement.
`
Earlier this month Germany’s Der Spiegel newspaper reported that Prof Joshua Shifrinson of Boston University had found a declassified document confirming that a pledge on Nato’s non-expansion had been made. Elsewhere it is reported that President Bill Clinton broke that pledge.
`
In 1999, Nato expanded by including former Soviet bloc countries Poland, Hungary and Czechia. Russia seethed but could do little.
`
In 2004, Nato expanded further by admitting former Soviet republics Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Russia complained again but once more its security concerns were ignored.
`
As Nato missiles aimed at Russia moved closer to its borders, Moscow protested but Nato said they were only there because of Iran. Russia was unconvinced.
`
After Ukraine’s independence its government continued friendly relations with Russia. But the US engineered the 2004-05 Orange Revolution that toppled the government and replaced it with one closer to the West.
`
France and Germany invaded Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries with each attack ending in disaster. Napoleon’s and Hitler’s forces nonetheless made damaging incursions into the Russian heartland and national psyche.
`
Today France and Germany are among European nations careful in managing relations with Russia. However, a US-led Nato with less experience and less sensitivity to Russian security concerns has acted with less care.
`
Russia remains the world’s largest country by area rich in natural resources like oil and gas. It is not a threat to Europe or even Ukraine if agreements made can be honoured, but provoking it can produce a different result.
`
Using Nato to challenge and undermine Russian interests will not end well for anyone. US interests are protected with the Atlantic Ocean as buffer, but European members of Nato share a continent with Russia and would have different priorities.
`
The UN wants Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine and return to base almost as much as Russia wants Nato to withdraw from its eastward momentum and return to the 1997 Nato-Russia Founding Act. Although neither may happen soon, Moscow has no interest or expressed desire to occupy Ukraine so the former is more likely than the latter.
`
Ukraine for now is trapped in a vicious cycle of violence and disintegration beyond its control. It is a familiar plight of pawns caught between incompatible great powers.
`
Ukraine wants urgent negotiations with Russia while Russia wants Belarus to host talks on the Minsk accords for a ceasefire and phased measures towards a compromise. Even if talks are possible it will be an uphill task since Moscow and Kiev have different interpretations of the 2014-15 terms.
`
Among Biden’s errors is targeting Putin personally as if another Russian leader would have acted differently. Even Boris Yeltsin would have done the same over Ukraine, while a nationalist like Vladimir Zhirinovsky would have acted tougher and earlier.
`
For the West to dump the Nord Stream 2 deal supplying Europe with Russian gas punishes only Europe which now has to pay many times more for US supplies. On Feb 4 Russia signed a new US$117.5bil oil and gas deal to supply China instead.
`
Western observers worry that China may learn unsavoury lessons from Russia’s actions in Ukraine to further its disputed claims in Asia. Any lessons would be more akin to Nato’s gradual encroachment on Russian territory.
`
The apparent beneficiary from Ukraine’s crisis is China, being a distraction for the West which also increases Moscow’s dependence on Beijing. But China is also awkwardly positioned as it wants to maintain good ties with all parties.
`
The only unqualified beneficiary of the crisis is China-Russia relations, which must count as another major strategic blunder for Nato and the West.
`
Bunn Nagara is a political analyst and Honorary Research Fellow of the Perak Academy. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.

Source link

 


Is Ukraine a metaverse nightmare?


`

The Russian pipe-laying ship 'Akademik Tscherski' which is on deployment for the further construction of the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline, is moored at the port of Mukran on the island of Ruegen, Germany, on Sept. 8, 2020. The gas is still flowing from Russian even as bullets and missiles fly in Ukraine. But the war is raising huge questions about the energy ties between Europe and Russia. The conflict is helping keep oil and gas prices high due to fears of a possible reduction in supplies, and consumers will continue to face financial stress from that. 

 


The real-life cost of war: People walk at the border crossing between Poland and Ukraine, in Medyka, Poland, on February 24, 2022. Photo: Reuters

 Moving from a unipolar world to a multipolar world was always likely to be messy and risk-prone. But few saw how fast we moved from beating war drums to actual armed conflict between the Great Powers, the latest being in Ukraine. Are we on a march of folly to World War III, or have key players lost sight of reality?

`Lest we forget, World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945) were fought to keep down rising powers—Germany and later Japan.
`
Russia and China suffered the most casualties in WWII, and both were allies against German Nazis and Japanese militarists.
`
The United States became the real winner, but decided after WWII to contain communism in both the Soviet Union (USSR) and China.
`
Fifty years ago, in 1972, US President Nixon set aside enmity against China, restored US-China relations, and in one strategic stroke, isolated the Soviet Union, leading to its collapse two decades later.
`
The great achievement during the Cold War was the avoidance of nuclear conflict, with the Cuban missile crisis being a live test of brinkmanship.
`
Both sides climbed down when the USSR removed missiles from Cuba, and the US quietly removed missiles from Turkey.
`
President Kennedy understood that grandstanding on moral issues should be restrained, because in a nuclear war, mutually assured destruction is madness.
`
After seven decades of peace, the Western media has been painting the multipolar world as a black-and-white conflict between good vs evil, democracy vs autocracy—without appreciating that the other side may have different points of view that need to be heard.
`
By definition, a multipolar world means that liberal democracies will have to live with different ideologies and regimes.
`
Today, YouTube and the Web provide a wealth of alternative views than mainstream media, such as CNN or BBC.
`
Prof John Mearsheimer, author of the influential book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," offers the insight that the Western expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) was the reason why Russia felt threatened.
`
The more the Nato allies try to arm Ukraine, the more insecure Russia gets.
`
In essence, Russia wants a buffer zone of neutral countries like Austria, which are not members of Nato, but that does not exclude trade with all sides.
`
Carnegie Moscow Center analyst Alexander Baunov described how "the two sides appear to be negotiating over different things.
`
Russia is talking about its own security, while the West is focusing on Ukraine's."
`
What he is describing are two sides that are each in their own social bubble or virtual reality (VR) Metaverse, deaf to the other side's views.
`
The term "Metaverse" came from a 1992 dystopian sci-fi novel titled "Snow Crash," where the Metaverse is the virtual refuge from an anarchic world controlled by the Mafia.
`
Today, Metaverse is an online virtual world where the user blends VR with the real, flesh-and-blood world through VR glasses and software augmented reality (AR).
`
In other words, in Metaverse, your mind is colonised by whatever algorithm and virtual information that you get—real or fake news.
`
Metaverse is escapism from reality, and will not help us solve real world problems, especially when we need to talk eyeball to eyeball.
`
The Metaverse designer is more interested in controlling or influencing our minds, feeding us what we want to hear or see, rather than what information we need to have to make good decisions. The risk is that we think VR conflict is costless, whereas real war has real flesh-and-blood costs.
`
.In short, the more we look inward at our own Metaverse, the more we neglect the collective costs to the world as it lurches from peace to war
`
Surprisingly, I found the right-wing influential Fox commentator Tucker Carlson asking better questions than CNN or BBC commentators.
`
In his show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in the segment "How will this conflict affect you?" he asked bluntly why Americans should hate Putin and what the war will cost every American.
`
Carlson asked some really serious questions, even though his views are partisan—have the Democrats, with their moral concern to hate Putin, forgotten the big picture of war costs?
`
First, would Americans be willing to go into a winter war with Russia?
`
Second, would they pay much higher gas prices as oil prices have already hit above USD 100 per barrel?
`
Although economic sanctions are applied, even Europe will not be willing to risk cutting off gas supplies from Russia, since Russia accounts for 35 percent of European gas supplies.
`
Third, is Ukraine a real democracy?
`
Carlson's 2018 book "Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution" is well worth reading to understand how conservative Americans think about elites who care about themselves more than society at large. 

Carlson asked some really serious questions, even though his views are partisan—have the Democrats, with their moral concern to hate Putin, forgotten the big picture of war costs?
`
First, would Americans be willing to go into a winter war with Russia?
`
Second, would they pay much higher gas prices as oil prices have already hit above USD 100 per barrel?
`
Although economic sanctions are applied, even Europe will not be willing to risk cutting off gas supplies from Russia, since Russia accounts for 35 percent of European gas supplies.
`
Third, is Ukraine a real democracy?
`
Carlson's 2018 book "Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution" is well worth reading to understand how conservative Americans think about elites who care about themselves more than society at large.
`
In sum, the decade of 2020s may face a tough period of escalating conflicts at local, regional and global levels, with proxy wars that disrupt each other's economies and social stability.
`
If states fail, and poor and hungry people migrate at a larger scale, even more border conflicts are likely, since most will want to go to the richer countries in the North, such as Europe and America.
`
There is no ideal world where everyone is good and the other side is bad.
`
In a multipolar world, there will be all kinds of people that we don't like, but we have to live with them.
`
A negotiated peace is better than mutual destruction.
`
In Metaverse, virtual life can be beautiful, moral and perfect, but the real world is lurching towards a collective nightmare.
`
We should not kid ourselves that the Metaverse VR of self-deception is the real world.

`
We either sleepwalk to war, or have the courage to opt for sustainable peace.
`
The real question is: Who is willing to climb down and eat the humble pie for the sake of peace?
`
By Andrew Sheng is adjunct professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing and the University of Malaya. He was formerly the chairman of the Securities and Futures Commission, Hong Kong. 

Andrew Sheng | South China Morning PostTan Sri Andrew Sheng (born 1946) is Hong Kong-based Malaysian Chinese banker, academic and commentator. He started his career as an accountant and is now a distinguished fellow of Fung Global Institute, a global think tank based in Hong Kong.[1] He served as chairman of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) before his replacement by Martin Wheatley in

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.

Source link

 

Related posts:

 

THE GLOCALISATION OF HUMANITY 

 

China calls for building a community for man and nature at US-held climate summit

Monday, December 13, 2021

Mutual trust and understanding essential: Lessons from China’s development model

 

China can also take the lead in regional good governance.

TO achieve international connectivity, close international cooperation and coordination is required at all times, said political analyst Bunn Nagara.

And this also requires a certain level of trust and confidence among countries, he stressed.

For China and Malaysia, however, this is being challenged by active disputes in the South China Sea between China and Malaysia’s Asean neighbours as well as other “security incidents”, said Nagara at the recent Friends of Silk Road forum organised by the Malaysia-china Friendship Association.

“Some of these altercations have been bitter and alarming, and steadily more incidents have affected Malaysia.”

Nagara said these are avoidable and costly problems which have a significant impact on regional policy.

“They are costly because without these unnecessary challenges, regional cooperation, integration and development would improve tremendously. They occur at great cost to all of us.”

Together, China and Asean countries can do much more and achieve greater heights of development, but political will and courage are needed to turn wise thoughts into reality, he said.

“Some argue that the South China Sea issue is a key hurdle to deepening our bilateral relationship but I don’t think that because this comes from history and this can be discussed and resolved diplomatically.

“The immediate problem is not the conflicting claims, which have been there for years and will still be there for years to come. The outstanding problem is the possible actions that happen can be a very dangerous situation.“

“Closer cooperation and coordination are key, and whether and how far we can progress and succeed on these issues remain to be seen. I hope we have the political will to do what is necessary for all our interests in this region. I also hope that we can all work more closely together to achieve these necessary ends.

“For example, China and Asean should have quiet diplomatic discussions, away from all the publicity, so that we can talk frankly and quietly behind the scenes, so that others may not intervene.”

Another area where China can take the lead is in regional good governance, Nagara said.

“China could help us as well in terms of showing what kind of governance is needed to ensure sustainable economic growth.”

He explained that an unfortunate aspect of rapid economic development in this region is corrupt practices and persons.

“China has done a very good job in clamping down on corruption, which many other countries would like to do as well. But since corruption is often an international crime with cross-border implications, governments need to work more closely against it. An effective regional anti-corruption regime will need efficient extradition laws to deal with suspected individuals and fugitives from justice.”

China can be a global leader in anti-corruption laws and action, said Nagara.

“No country can object to that, and all countries will then follow China’s positive leadership in this effort. Many of these solutions are vital and not difficult to implement, given the political will.

“They are necessary if greater economic growth, with more development through better regional integration, is to be assured.”

 Source link

Lessons from China’s development model

Comprehensive initiative: Farmer Wang Enhai loading baskets of green plum in Quanfa Village of Wushan County, China, for sale. Like many others in Quanfa, Wang managed to climb out of poverty through China’s targeted poverty reduction programme. — Xinhua/file photo

DESPITE the Covid-19 pandemic and the global economic stagnation in 2020, China managed to record 2.3% growth and a US$4.6tril (RM17.69tril) trade volume last year, becoming the only major economy to grow during the devastating year.

Already the world’s second largest economy with a GDP of US$14.7tril (RM61.92tril), it is no surprise that China managed to bounce back easily.

As Malaysia-China Friendship Association (PPMC) president Datuk Abdul Majit Ahmad Khan put it, China’s achievements in development are “spectacular”.

He noted, “This is clearly demonstrated in the transformation of the country’s status from a poor nation to a moderately prosperous one. It is a record in human history that a country has achieved so much prosperity and stability within the space of 40 years.

“From a ‘closed nation’, China today is an engine of regional and global growth. Its development model has provided opportunities for investment, trade, tourism, and China has become the global hub of supply chain, manufacturing, and services in trade.”

The question is whether China’s successful development model could be adopted elsewhere.

This has been the subject of debate among many analysts and was one of the discussion points of a recent Friends of Silk Road forum organised by the PPMC with the support of the Chinese Embassy in Malaysia entitled “The global significance of China’s develop-mental model”.

Held in conjunction with the 30th anniversary of the establishment of China-Asean relations, the aim of the webinar was to continue the ongoing dialogue and confidence- building over the years between Malaysia and China. It also provided an opportunity for reflection on the 100th anniversary of the Com-munist Party of China as well as China’s transformation in the context of Malaysia-China’s relationship.

“Malaysia and the Asean region have indeed gained tremendously from China’s transformation as reflected in the deep and strong economic linkages between the two regions,” said Abdul Majit.

Comprehensive poverty eradication


One area is poverty eradication, said Dr Ge Hongliang, deputy dean of the Asean College of Guangxi University for Nationalities in China.

Delving into the relationship between Malaysia and China, specifically Sino-Malaysian cooperation in poverty reduction, Ge highlighted that China’s poverty eradication programme is a topic that is important in the study of China and South-East Asia.

Relating his firsthand witness account of China’s development, Wang Yuzhu, director of Apec (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) and East Asia Cooperation Center at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said he could see China’s “economic miracle” in his own life’s journey – from his humble beginnings on a farm in a rural Chinese village to a comfortable life as a public servant.

Wang concurred that the republic’s comprehensive poverty eradication programme is one of the important factors underpinning the country’s rise.

“Based on current poverty standards, 770 million rural poor people in China have been lifted out of poverty since China opened up. This accounted for more than 70% of global poverty reduction population during the same period according to the World Bank’s international poverty standards,” he said, referring to the “China’s Practice in Human Poverty Reduction” white paper.

China’s poverty eradication initiative was effective as it was targeted, with meticulous planning such as precise project arrangements, inch-perfect measures as well as accurate use of funds, personnel and other resources, Wang noted.

There is a learning value from it for developing countries, including Malaysia, to achieve complete poverty reduction and modernisation, said Ge.

“This has undoubtedly created a useful basis for China and Malaysia to continue to strengthen cooperation on the poverty reduction agenda.”

Adding that extra attention needs to be given to the rural and less developed areas, he said China and Malaysia would be able to have mutual cooperation through this, specifically to develop agriculture.

Tourists enjoying handmade lanterns displayed by a handicraft company in Guangling County of Datong. Under China's poverty eradication programme, the company has helped over 200 impoverished residents to by providing them with occupational training. — Xinhua/File photo 

Tourists enjoying handmade lanterns displayed by a handicraft company in Guangling County of Datong. Under China's poverty eradication programme, the company has helped over 200 impoverished residents to by providing them with occupational training. — Xinhua/File photo

Vital global role

There is a global significance to China’s rise, said Wang.

With its land and population size, China is an important part of the world, he noted.

“China is also the world’s factory – its exports account for about 16% of the world’s goods. Therefore, China’s problems are not only its own problems but also global problems. China’s development is an important part of world development.”

China would also need to play a big role in protecting the environment, he noted.

“We need strive to reach the peak of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, as put forward by the slogan ‘green water and green mountains are golden mountains and silver mountains’.”

Ultimately, said Wang, China and the world need to develop together.

“China adheres to the policy of good neighbour and friendship to safeguard regional and world peace. China also actively participates in regional cooperation, adheres to multilateralism, and promotes regional and global economic integration,” he said.

He added that China is also working together with other countries to build “a peaceful and prosperous community with a shared future for humankind” through the Belt and Road Initiative.

However, Wang believes China’s “development experience” is distinctly Chinese. He listed 10 points behind China’s rise which included upholding the party’s leadership, putting the people first, following the “Chinese path”, promoting a united front, and remaining committed to self-reform.

Independent political analyst and honorary research fellow at the Perak Academy Bunn Nagara gave an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of Malaysia-China relations and also the impact of China’s rise and how it has continued to reshape regional geopolitical dynamics.

He too noted that China’s development model is of great interest to almost everyone, from economists to policymakers and anyone with interest in political economy, strategic studies and international relations. It is also of great interest to people in many different countries in the developing world, in the developed world, among former colonies and former colonial powers, and among emerging markets.

“China’s development model is special and its development record is spectacular for the following reasons.

“Development is rapid, even for the large size of the country. It is essentially a hybrid endogenous model unique to China. Develop-ment does not derive from colonial conquests and plunder of other lands.

“China’s sheer size means the impact on many other countries is considerable.”

But there are important caveats in considering China’s development model, he said: “First, that China did not begin with a single and fixed model 100 years ago to arrive at where it is today. It began with a set of values, principles and goals, selecting and then adapting theory to suit local conditions at the time, with what is called Chinese characteristics.

“The process is grounded in pragmatism... and is evolutionary, incremental and revolutionary as the need arises at each stage. Periodic reflection and correction then helped to refocus policy towards the original values, principles and goals.”

Despite the historical hardships that China has endured, it has also been fortunate to be able to experiment and develop its own model of development, free from the pressures and conditionalities imposed by multilateral agencies on so many developing nations, Nagara added. Like other developed economies in East Asia, China has shown that it can overcome this development dependency trap.

Nagara feels that Malaysia and China can learn from each other.

“It is just as important for countries to avoid copying a development model from somewhere else as it is for any country to reject imposing its model on others. China has wisely chosen not to export its development model, even though other countries may learn from it.... But no one size fits all; we’ve got to learn from one another – pick and choose what fits us the best.”

Another Malaysian expert, Datuk Dr Irmohizam Ibrahim, who is an adjunct professor at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and visiting professor at the Center of Malaysia Scholars in Huaqiao University, China, suggested ways in which Malaysia and China could work together to jumpstart Malaysia’s pandemic-stricken economy, including considering some opening up of the borders with a travel bubble.

Irmohizam also stressed the importance of passing the baton to the next generation to continue maintaining this bridge-building work that is ongoing between Malaysia and China.

“We should encourage further exchanges between China and Malaysia, specifically through people-to-people exchanges, especially the young,” he said. 

By HARIATI AZIZAN

Source link

 

Related posts

 

Supporters of US President Donald Trump protest outside the US Capitol on Wednesday, in Washington, DC. Demonstrators breached security and...

 

Cheah Cheng Hye: Malaysians should find this campaign of special interest because China, like Malaysia, is trying to break o...
 
The Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee presides over the sixth plenary session of the 19th CPC Centra...
 
A view of the US Capitol Building. Photo: IC Chinese Foreign Ministry on Sunday released a report on US democracy, exposing the deficienci...
 
  Biden opens democracy summit, 'shows no confidence' The virtual "Summit for Democracy" held by the US kicked off on...
 
  Illustration: Liu Rui/GT    NGOs often conjure up the images of activists getting busy banning ivory trad

 

Beijing Winter Olympics   Does Anyone Care About Their Absence? They Are Not Even Invited!   US' act around the Beijing Winter Olympics ..

Sunday, October 6, 2019

China in the Asian century, Is the future truly Asian?

As China continues to develop, so does its global influence. What would the future be like for South-East Asia with a ‘risen China’?
Rising together: No, Chinese imperialism is not simply replacing US imperialism, as China emphasises win-win partnerships, says Prof Zhang. — Handout

China in the Asian century


PROF Zhang Weiwei is among the most respected scholars in China today. He is a leading expert on China’s “reform and opening up” policies and its status as a “civilisational state.”

As director of the China Institute at Shanghai’s elite Fudan University, he is also professor of International Relations and had served as English interpreter for China’s Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping. In an exclusive interview earlier in the week, Prof Zhang spoke to Sunday Star about future prospects with China.

As the leading authority on China’s civilisational state, how would you define it, as distinct from a nation state?

With China, it’s a combination of the world’s longest continuous civilisation and a super-large modern state. A civilisational state is made up of hundreds of states amalgamated into one large state.

China is a modern state respecting international law like a nation state, but culturally diverse, with sovereignty and territorial integrity.

There are four features of China’s civilisational state: a super-large population of 1.4 billion people, a continent-size territory, significant culture, and a long history.

If we are returning to an East Asian tributary system, what changes can we expect in China’s policies in this region today?

The tributary system is a Western name for China’s relations in this region (in the past). China is a “civilisational” – as an adjective – state, a modern amalgamation of many (component communities).

During the Ming Dynasty, China was a world power – but as a civilizational state more than a nation state – and did not seek to colonize other countries, unlike Western powers that were nation states. Since then, China’s status and capacity as a nation state has grown significantly. Will it then become more like Western powers now?

China today is a nation state, but different from European (nation) states. It is also still a civilisational state.

The Chinese people are not just Han, although the Han majority is 92%. There are 56 ethnic groups in China, (mostly) minorities.

But China rejected the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling on the South China Sea, initiated by the Philippines, which found China’s claims insupportable.

The tribunal was illegal; it had no right to make such decisions. The Permanent Court of Arbitration is not part of the United Nations.

How can countries in South-East Asia be convinced that the rise of China will not simply result in Chinese imperialism replacing US imperialism?

China emphasises win-win partnerships, such as in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It encourages discovering, building, and benefiting together.

Countries in South-East Asia join the BRI out of their own interest. It is not something imposed by China.

Some countries have described the Second Belt and Road Summit this year as being more consultative than the first. As for the future?

The future Belt and Road Summits will be even more open and consultative.

Is the current US-China trade dispute only a symptom of much larger differences, such as a historic divide in the reshaping of a new global order?

It is more than about trade. With the United States especially, it is zero-sum, but for China it is win-win.

The Chinese economy is larger than the US economy, or soon will be. (In PPP or purchasing power parity terms, China’s economy grew larger than the US economy in 2014.)

The United States is trying to decouple its economy from China’s. How can China ensure that it would not only withstand these efforts but also triumph?

The attempt to decouple the two economies will fail. About 85% of US companies that are already in China want to stay.

Looking at the trade structure, most Chinese exports to the US are irreplaceable. No other place in the world gives a better price-quality ratio in manufactured goods.

So the US cannot win in this decoupling because there are no alternatives (as desirable producing countries). China has the world’s largest chain or network, or factory clusters, for all kinds of goods.

How likely do you see a hot war – more than a trade war or a cold war – breaking out between a rising China and what is perceived to be a declining United States?

The US knows that it won’t win (a hot war). No two nuclear-armed countries will go to war. It would be very messy.

So far no two nuclear-armed countries have fought. There may be a small likelihood of direct confrontation, but not a war situation.

No commercial shipping has been interrupted by China. So the US need not worry.

Can Asean, or an Asean country like Malaysia, help to bring the United States and China closer together as partners rather than as rivals?

Possibly. Malaysia perhaps can help, as it is friendly to both China and the US.

As China continues in its rise, what steps is it taking to provide for more cooperative and consultative relations in this region?

Trade between China and Asean countries, for example, has grown, and has now exceeded China-US trade.

Generally, China’s relations with Asean countries are quite promising, with Free Trade Area relationships as well.

By Bunn Nagara, who is Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.

Source link

Poised for growth: Shipping containers sit stacked next to gantry cranes at the Yantian International Container Terminals in Shenzhen, China. — Bloomberg

Is the future truly Asian?

 

The Region, while growing fast, faces issues such as youth joblessness, climate change and income gaps


THIS is a question that is at the heart of the tensions across the Pacific.

To Parag Khanna, author of The Future Is Asian (2019), the answer is almost self-evident.

However, if you read his book carefully, you will find that he thinks global power will be shared between Asian and Western civilisations

For the West, the rise of Asia has been frighteningly fast, because as late as 1960, most of Asia was poor, agricultural and rural, with an average income per capita of less than US$1,000 in 2010 prices.

But 50 years on, Asia has become more urban and industrialised, and is becoming a challenge to the West in terms of trade, income and innovation.

Global management consulting firm McKinsey has just published a study on “The Future is Asian” that highlights many aspects why Asia is both attractive to businessmen and yet feared as a competitor.

Conventionally, excluding the Middle East and Iran, Asia is divided into North-East Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), South-East Asia (mostly Asean), South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) and Central Asia.

But McKinsey has identified at least four Asias that are quite complementary to each other.

First, there is Advanced Asia, comprising Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Singapore, each with per capita incomes exceeding US$30,000 (RM125,600), highly urbanised and rich, with a combined GDP that is 10% of global GDP.

This group provides technology, capital and markets for the rest of Asia, but it is ageing fast.

Second, China is the world’s largest trading economy, second largest in GDP after the United States, and a growing consumer powerhouse. By 2030, the Chinese consumer market will be equal to Western Europe and the United States combined.

China is also an increasing capital provider to the rest of the world.

Third, the 11 countries of Emerging Asia (Asean plus Bhutan and Nepal, excluding Singapore) have young populations, fast growth and cultural diversity.

Fourth, Frontier Asia and India – covering essentially South and Central Asia including Afghanistan – which have 1.8 billion in population, still rural but young.

Taken together, these four Asias today account for one-third of global GDP and 40% of the world’s middle class.

But what is remarkable is that while the region grew from trading with the rest of the world, intra-regional trade has grown faster, to 60% of total trade, with intra-regional foreign direct investment (FDI) at 66% of total inward FDI, and 74% of air traffic.

Much of Asian growth will come from rapid urbanisation, amid growing connectivity with each other. The top 20 cities in Asia will be mega conglomerates that are among the largest cities in the world with the fastest-growing income.

A major finding is that America First-style protectionism is helping to intensify the localisation and regionalisation of intra-regional connectivity in terms of trade, finance, knowledge and cultural networks.

Furthermore, the traditional savings surpluses in Asia basically went to London and New York and were recycled back in terms of foreign direct investment and portfolio flows.

But no longer.

Increasingly, Asian financial centres are emerging to compete to re-pump surplus capital from Advanced Asia and China to fund the growth in Emerging and Frontier Asia.

In short, intra-regional finance is following intra-regional trade.

In a multipolar world, no one wants to be completely dependent on any single player but prefers network connectivity to other cities and centres of activity and creativity.

As Khanna puts it: “The phrase ‘China-led Asia’ is thus no more acceptable to most Asians than the notion of a ‘US-led West’ is to Europeans.”

But are such rosy growth prospects in Asia predestined or ordained?

Based on the trajectory of demographic growth of half the world’s young population moving into middle income, the logical answer appears to be yes.

But there are at least three major bumps in that trajectory.

First, Asia, like the rest of the world, is highly vulnerable to global warming.

Large populations with faster growth mean more energy consumption, carbon emissions and natural resource degradation. Large chunks of Asia will be vulnerable to more water, food and energy stresses, as well as natural disasters (rising seas, forest fires, pandemics, typhoons, etc).

Second, even though more Asians have been lifted out of poverty, domestic inequality of income and wealth has increased in the last 20 years.

Part of this is caused by rural-urban disparities, and widening gaps in high-value knowledge and skills. Without adequate social safety nets, healthcare and social security, dissatisfaction over youth unemployment, access to housing, and deafness to problems by bureaucracies has erupted in protests everywhere.

Third, geopolitical rivalry has meant that there will be tensions between diverse Asia over territorial, cultural and religious differences that can rapidly escalate into conflict. The region is beginning to spend more on armaments and defence instead of focusing on alleviating poverty and addressing the common threat of climate change.

Two generational leaders from the West have approached these threats from very different angles.

Addressing the United Nations, 16-year-old Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg dramatically shamed the older generation for its lack of action on climate change.

“People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are at the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you, ” she said.

The young are idealistically appealing for unity in action against a common fate.

In contrast, addressing the UN Security Council, US President Donald Trump was arguing the case for patriotism as a solution to global issues. Climate change was not mentioned at all.

Since the older generation created most of the carbon emissions in the first place, no wonder the young are asking why they are inheriting all the problems that the old deny.

This then is the difference in passion between generations.

Globalisation occurred because of increasing flows of trade, finance, data and people. That is not stoppable by patriot-protected borders.

A multipolar Asia within a multipolar world means that even America First, however strong, will have to work with everyone, despite differences in worldviews.

All patriots will have to remember that it is the richness of diversity that keeps the world in balance.

The writer ANDREW SHENG is a distinguished fellow with the Asia Global Institute at the University of Hong Kong. This article is part of the Asian Editors Circle series, a weekly commentary by editors from the Asia News Network, an alliance of 24 news media titles across the region.

Source link


 
Read more:


China in the Asian century - Chinadaily



 

 

 Related posts:


https://youtu.be/X_Z9QE4EblY https://youtu.be/dit7zmnzAh0 Highlights: China celebrates 70th anniversary with biggest ever military ...



Sunday, July 28, 2019

Hong Kong in decline

Losing ground: China’s spectacular rise has affected Hong Kong’s thriving financial services industry, along with development of port services. - Reuters
https://youtu.be/elH1PrASTAU

TWO generations ago cheap goods from Hong Kong were labelled simply “Made in Hong Kong,” but their poor quality soon made that embarrassing.

For marketing reasons they were then labelled “Made in the British Empire” or “Empire Made.” Britain, home of the First Industrial Revolution, was better regarded than any Far Eastern outpost.

However, manufacturing could never suffice for Hong Kong’s economy because of limited land and rising property prices.

Enter the space-efficient financial services industry, along with development of port services. Then a generation ago Hong Kong began to face its biggest challenge: China’s spectacular rise.

But if Hong Kong would be part of China again, wouldn’t it also enjoy the mainland’s rising fortunes?

Hong Kongers always had a problem with the first part ever since Britain’s takeover in 1841.

From the late-1970s the West was all for China’s “opening up” policies. Hong Kongers looked across the water to see Shenzhen’s phenomenal rise from old market town to bustling modern metropolis.

Shenzhen had twice Hong Kong’s population and a much faster rate of development. As just one cog in China’s production behemoth, Shenzhen soon buried Hong Kong’s prospect as a manufacturing centre.

In global references Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou is the world’s biggest productive mega region, demographically twice the size of the next biggest in Nagoya-Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe.

But Hong Kongers still regarded themselves as a breed apart from the mainland – a “Made in the British Empire” attitude dies hard.

Surely Hong Kong still had superlative status as a leading port and financial services centre?

Not quite, especially when Shanghai would soon outclass it on both counts.

Hong Kong slipped to fifth place among the world’s busiest container ports. Among the world’s Top 10, six are now on China’s mainland.

The Shanghai Municipality’s population is 3.5 times Hong Kong’s, with an area 5.7 times as large, meaning a more relaxed population density of just 62% of Hong Kong’s.

Shanghai’s 2018 nominal GDP was US$494bil (RM2.04 trillion), which was 136.1% of Hong Kong’s. Even Shenzhen is catching up with Hong Kong, falling short by just 3.3%.

Business is Hong Kong’s business, but the mainland is doing better in both performance and prospects.

The Hong Kong stock market is not necessarily stable. Since the 1960s it has experienced a dozen market crashes.

Shanghai’s Stock Exchange market capitalisation of US$5.01 trillion is larger than Hong Kong’s by 26.5%. Hong Kong’s exceeded Shenzhen’s by only 12.8%.

Hong Kong as business enclave has been eclipsed and outdone by the mainland. At the same time its future increasingly depends on the mainland.

Since 1997, Hong Kong dropped from representing 20% to just 3% of China’s GDP.

For China today Hong Kong is just another Chinese city, meaning it is dispensable. Shenzhen and the rest of the mainland do not need a nettlesome Hong Kong for China’s continued rise.

Hong Kong protesters have committed at least a dozen strategic errors.

  1. One, they assume Hong Kong is essential to the mainland’s future when only the reverse is true. There is no equivalence between Hong Kong and the mainland in any way that works for Hong Kong.

  2. Two, protest appeals to mainlanders for support mistakenly attempt to rekindle the spirit of Tienanmen Square protests a generation ago. Those protesters are now part of the system in a prosperous new China, actively engaged in business or government. Their original 1989 complaint of corruption in high places is keenly addressed by Beijing.

  3. Three, attempts to solicit mainlanders’ support are badly confused with prejudice against them. Within days of trying to spread the protest message to mainlanders in July, protesters attacked mainland traders, shoppers and tourists.

  4. Four, protesters violently attacked police personnel, alienating many Hong Kongers including most protesters. It signalled a slide towards civil disorder.

  5. Five, vandalising the Legislative Council building established illegal conduct and further alienated everyone else.

  6. Six, more violence was targeted at the liaison office when sympathisers had thought protesters would never do that. It confirmed the criminality discrediting the protests as a whole.

  7. Seven, besides disrupting traffic and commerce, harassing passengers at the airport and train stations. It did nothing to promote their cause to the general public but quite the opposite.

  8. Eight, protests did not subside even after Hong Kong’s Executive backed down on the extradition Bill. It revealed the unreasonable nature of the protests.

  9. Nine, no protester had demanded democracy for Hong Kong in 156 years of British colonial rule. If they had, they may have a legitimate basis for demanding democracy today.

  10. Ten, it was foolish to unfurl the Union Jack and call for reverting to British rule. Seeking the denial of democracy by a foreign hand exposes the hypocrisy of the protests.

  11. Eleven, it was foolhardy to unfurl “Old Glory,” calling for US intervention during a US-China trade war. With trade a major basis of Hong Kong’s survival, it was politically suicidal.

  12. Twelve, protesters fail to understand that no other country can or would do what is necessary to boost Hong Kong’s fortunes. Only the mainland can do that if it wants to.

Young protesters still to find employment amid poor conditions and rising costs may think they have legitimate grievances.

Yet all the solutions – more investment, better job prospects, even improved governance – can come meaningfully only via the mainland.

Beijing can deploy troops to Hong Kong, but to what end?

Hong Kong’s worst punishment is getting exactly what the protesters want – isolation. That will leave it further behind as the mainland prospers, surging ahead.

Hong Kong can stew in its own juices until tender. Beijing may let the anger fester and rot until then.

Hong Kong’s strength as money-making hub is also its weakness. Its stock market can crash again, which can also send a message to Taiwan.

Hong Kong tycoons are already looking for more places abroad to stash their fortunes. Without decisive mainland investment, the economic enclave can die a natural death.

What’s left of Hong Kong’s Establishment will then surely discipline rowdy mobs. The triads have already shown leadership here, symbolising the decline.

By Bunn Nagara, a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Source link 


A King’s wish for peace and unityRead more:

Queen speaks of Chinese lineageQueen speaks of Chinese 


Related posts:

Sunday, December 16, 2018

More than just a trade war, US in skirmises with China over IT, trade and 'national security'

https://youtu.be/pSHOSumep9E
https://youtu.be/4fJKlEyEOEg https://youtu.be/N5Ta_RhsXYY


American economist Jeffrey D. Sachs says Canada is doing the Trump administration's bidding in its handling of the Huawei case. To read more: https://www.cbc.ca/1.4947966


Nobody is supposed to win any war, and the US is anxiously proving that true in skirmishes with China over IT, trade and ‘national security’.

CHINA will not have Ivanka Trump arrested if she were to transit through Hong Kong airport, even now.

Beijing does not have the intent or capacity for that – nor the recklessness required for it, particularly in the throes of a trade war.

But US authorities had Sabrina Meng Wanzhou arrested while transiting through Vancouver airport. Ivanka and Sabrina are prominent businesswomen, but there are also differences between them. Ivanka is the daughter of President Donald Trump. In China and elsewhere, Sabrina is the daughter of modern China and its historic rise.

Critics of Sabrina’s arrest call it a kidnapping. The charges against her are unclear, the intent lacks transparency, and the action itself is unprecedented even for US double standards and a maverick president.

British politician George Galloway condemned Sabrina’s arrest as piracy, a death wish and an act of war. Prof Jeffrey Sachs calls it almost an act of war on China’s business world exposing Washington’s “supreme hypocrisy.” He finds the official pretext lacking credibility. Sachs says that in the past nine years alone, the US penalised 25 other companies from almost as many countries for violating unilateral US sanctions on doing business in third, fourth or fifth countries.

Yet in all these cases the US held the company responsible rather than an individual officer of the company. The case against Huawei had taken an unprecedented and disturbing character from the start.

Jack Ma says the trade war itself is only part of the complicated and now troubling relationship between the US and China. It is so messy that he sees any resolution only in another 20 years.

At one level, today’s US phobia about doing business with China relates to what Washington calls security concerns. Huawei founder and Sabrina’s father Ren Zhengfei was reportedly an elected official of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1982.

What would that mean for Ma of Alibaba, confirmed only two weeks ago as a current card-carrying member of the CPC? Nobody outside Washington seems too bothered.

Business, especially international trade, is supposed to be above petty political differences in a very diverse world. But apparently, pettiness matters in a trade war scenario veering towards a cold war. The trade war mindset and the persecution of Huawei are situated within global superpower and geopolitical rivalry between the world’s two biggest economies.

China is still a developing country despite its many achievements, and is determined to press ahead with more growth to develop its poorer regions. Huawei is in the forefront of this national resurgence.

The US remains the world’s technology leader and sole superpower – and intends to stay that way. Since a hyper-competitive international environment does not always favour it, it has resolved to block any challenge while complaining about trade with China.

Owing to China’s population size, significant GDP growth per capita would mean development on a massive scale. And because of reliance on international markets and global supply chains, connectivity makes infrastructure and IT vital.

The current US position on China consists of the phobias and manias of senior administration officials around Trump.

Among the most prominent is economics hawk Prof Peter Navarro, head of the White House National Trade Council. The author of Death By China was conspicuously left out of Trump’s cordial visit to China last year.

Since then, Navarro has moved closer to the Oval Office. So have other hawks circling China.

John Bolton is a Bush-era neo-conservative savouring entry into Trump’s inner circle. That did not happen in the first year, but now he is National Security Adviser. Bolton is notorious as instigator of the Iraq invasion. Now he has focused his foreign aggression on a trade war, indicating he had more to do with Sabrina’s arrest than Trump himself.

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is another hawk eager to target Beijing. He regards China as a “trade threat” and has grown personally close to Trump.

The Economist called US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross a protectionist, and he has submitted to the hawkish trend against China. His shares in some China companies are no longer an issue, especially after he has turned his China experience to serve US nationalist interests.

Yet for all their devices, the attack on China by targeting Huawei will not dampen – much less stop – China’s rise. It will teach China to be more vigilant about trade partners, steel it for future pitfalls, and redouble its efforts to grow stronger.

Already there are signs of Sabrina’s arrest being counter-productive, with other forms of blowback against US interests virtually assured.

First, Beijing’s support for Chinese firms like Huawei operating internationally will grow. Even greater state-industry collaboration in China’s national interests, particularly when abroad, can be expected.

Second, China’s corporate sector will offer even greater support for the Government and the CPC in return. As this happens at multiple levels, China’s international competitiveness can only heighten.

Third, public support in China for Chinese companies has also grown, fuelling the rise of Chinese nationalism. Even before Sabrina’s arrest, a nationwide survey found majorities in 300 Chinese cities would boycott US companies.

Fourth, public support for the Chinese state and the CPC continues to accumulate. Whenever the national interest is threatened, all sectors close ranks against the common foe.

Fifth, the action against Huawei has provoked China and triggered its people’s national pride. The extent to which this will multiply is still uncertain, but a clear sense of it is evident in social media.

Sixth, international support for China and its campaign for free trade are set to grow. This involves more than just companies fearful of similar actions for violating US sanctions, since the US has alienated itself from even its allies.

Seventh, the Chinese diaspora in Canada has come out in support of Sabrina and other unfortunate Chinese nationals caught in such a situation. It has become more than just a national or criminal matter.

Eighth, Chinese Americans may also feel the racist pinch of US policy and act similarly. Will they then become suspects to their own Government?

Malaysian entrepreneur and Harvard MBA Tan Hock Eng’s Singapore-based Broadcom was supposed to take over California-based Quallcom in the biggest IT deal in the world. But in March this year the US scrapped the deal in the name of “national security interests.” To many ethnic Chinese that was a racist move.

Ninth, while some countries may sympathise with China over Huawei, others may just be put off by the US action and attitude. The result would be a net loss for US standing and prestige.

To provoke a rising China and get away with it requires consistently deft handling and masterful strategies. Both are lacking in Washington.

Trump has not been focused enough to even make senior administration appointments after two years. Melania Trump has also been pressuring her husband to dismiss the Deputy National Security Adviser.

The departure of senior staff has already been peaking on its own, many for personal reasons. Then Robert Mueller’s continuing investigations and indictments will add further to the dismissals.

All this is what comes of a “trade war” that is about more than just trade, involving more than any conventional notion of war.


Bunn NagaraBehind The Headlines

By Bunn Nagara, a Senior Fellow at ISIS Malaysia.
G2 becomes more pivotal




Related::

 

Pompeo's arrogance apparent in intervention to press China to release two Canadians

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said two Canadian citizens being kept in custody by China are unlawfully detained and they should be returned. Pompeo made the accusation on Friday during a joint press conference after the US-Canada 2+2 ministerial meeting

Be prepared for an escalation of row with Canada

In the struggle with Canada, China needs to prepare for the possibility of conflict escalation.


Related posts:


https://youtu.be/3z58zHmz-6k https://youtu.be/17KDxqffVFI Professor Dr. Wang Former Executive of Halliburton DID HUAWEI VIOLATE .


Made in China 2025 will boost manufucturing http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201804/14/WS5ad15aa0a3105cdcf6518423.html US misreadin...
Photo: VCG China’s business people, researchers, scholars say they ‘feel the chill’ in US Growing China-US tensions have affected te...
https://youtu.be/rqRItBZOp5g Ren Zhengfei leads Huawei Technologies, one of the world's largest manufacturer of telecommunication h...
In custody: A profile of Meng is displayed on a computer at a Huawei store in Beijing. The Chinese government, speaking through its emb...
https://youtu.be/_fFQ4oyaW6M https://youtu.be/OJ6pdi05oj8 https://youtu.be/QgPN00prqYI https://youtu.be/0YTBCndEhho Extra.
> https://youtu.be/WvrXDbRy8dU  https://youtu.be/OzCKON8KT2E https://youtu.be/SaQKhepUEOM https://youtu.be/2KpC1OzIYyM 
https://youtu.be/RACbXf27iQ0 https://youtu.be/JO31OG2IqZI Internet Protocol Version 9 第一代互联网 IPv9  Great news and why Washington. 

https://youtu.be/pxU75SDWy1s https://youtu.be/k9PXahBL3k0 https://youtu.be/JJas9DSkJCo https://youtu.be/evd_q0AkKm0  A Lo..