By: Azhar Azam
Kyiv does not have any strategic significance for Washington; it is of clear strategic importance for Moscow. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union for centuries and the two sides are fastened with a strong cultural, historic, ethnic and linguistic relationship. Many Ukrainians intrinsically have linked themselves with the Kremlin and take pride in sharing the same heritage.
For more than one month, from November 22 to December 26, the Orange Revolution dominated the world news in 2004 over the U.S. and NATO's sustained meddling in the country. Russia was well clued-up on that the orange-bedecked protesters were America's creation. The Russian President Vladimir Putin had called out Washington for pursuing a foreign policy packaged in "beautiful, pseudo-democratic phraseology."
Between 2000 and 2004, the campaign – orchestrated and funded by the U.S. – deployed consultancies, pollsters, diplomats and nonpartisan groups to overthrow governments in four countries in four years. Washington bankrolled opposition websites, sponsored exit polls and hired experts to organize focus groups and advise catchy slogans and punchy logos to mobilize young street protesters. The dingy U.S. strategy brought down governments in Belgrade and Tbilisi; it failed in Minsk and Harare.
In Kyiv, the U.S.-led coalition skated on thin ice by giving the Western nod and big bucks to the opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko. The half-assed intervention meant Ukraine was turned into a geostrategic issue by the U.S., which sought to quarantine Russia and pull every former Soviet republic into its orbit. The new president in 2005 promised to lean toward NATO, yet in an indication of rapprochement with Russia, the very next year appointed the pro-Moscow Viktor Yanukovych as prime minister, capping the gains of the U.S.-backed "chestnut revolution."
NATO in 2008 vowed Ukraine would one day join the organization. But Kyiv's incorporation into the security alliance was unacceptable to Russia for it will be akin to making the Black Sea a NATO lake. The NATO commitment also held out the possibility of blocking Russian access to one of the two major ports, Sevastopol, with grave national security consequences.
So, the West should seriously consider addressing Moscow concerns as these key considerations triggered the Georgia-Russia war in 2008. The U.S. deployment of a missile defense system in Romania, threatening Russian security, in 2011 made things worse over Moscow's belief Crimea and Sevastopol could develop into another American platform for strikes on Russia.
Yanukovych won the 2010 presidential election which was termed as fair and "truly competitive" by European observers. Ukraine in November 2013 plunged into crisis once the government dropped plans to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union and proposed a three-way trade commission, including resolving trade disputes. Although Putin wasn't against Kyiv's "sovereign choice," the decision led the way to the Euromaidan movement by supporters of the fallen-through deal.
However, there were some other reasons behind the suspension of the association and trade pact. Ukraine's economy was in limbo and had to put the treaty on hold until it found a solution and a decline in industrial production and relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States were "compensated" for by the European market. In addition, the Ukrainian parliament couldn't build consensus on another irritant, the EU demand to release the jailed opposition leader, Yulia Tymoshenko.
Russia is singled out for carrying out aggression on Ukraine's border. But by provoking and trying to round up Moscow, Washington and its allies bear the major responsibility for the crisis. The coup against the elected Ukrainian president, Putin suspected, was an attempt to integrate Ukraine into the West and establish a NATO naval base in Crimea to keep tabs on Russia.
Washington's narcissism to have a pro-western government in Kyiv, the U.S. official's blunt acknowledgment of investing over $5 billion in Ukraine since 1991, and support to drive Yanukovych out from power blew the whistle for Moscow.
All the U.S.-led efforts in Ukraine were not designed to make the country democratic; they aimed to bring Kyiv into the West's bastion, assimilate the country into NATO and tap its proximity to Moscow to NATO's advantage. The grand strategy to ignite civil war floundered, but that's how Washington has been pursuing a ruthless policy under the pretense of democracy, freedom and rights.
The latest Russia-Ukraine tensions are the continuation of the 2014 crisis. Kyiv is feeling the heat. Following the warning by U.S. President Joe Biden that the Kremlin could attack Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned the "respected leaders of the states" not to create "panic" and risk his country's economy. Still, America is threatening Russia with "horrific" consequences without showing any flexibility on Russian security concerns and legitimate demands, including denying Ukraine enrollment in NATO and stopping the alliance's expansion eastward.
A White House readout expresses a desire for a diplomatic solution while the Biden administration in practice doesn't intend to resolve the crisis peacefully as it continues to hype up the situation. We should remember that no country can exert a sphere of influence on others. In order to prevent a playback of 2014, America and NATO must put the kibosh on their dirty game, positively review Russian demands and engage Moscow in a constructive, results-driven dialogue.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-02-16/NATO-must-end-dirty-play-to-resolve-the-crisis-around-Ukraine-17Hu3lYAfRK/index.html
"How do you worship besides Allah something which has no power either to harm or benefit you." Seek truth @ peacetv.tv and islamqa.info
February 21, 2022
China-Germany enduring partnership needs to be protected
By: Azhar Azam
Protecting national interests and maintaining good relations with all states of the world to advance the country's economy is Germany's legitimate right as a sovereign nation. Berlin's objective and neutral approach in international dealings or crises such as in Ukraine should neither be questioned nor inequitably linked with a decline in reputation.
Despite mounting pressure on Germany to downgrade diplomatic ties and take a harder stance on China, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel obstinately refused to intervene in Chinese internal affairs and advocated building on a close and cordial economic relationship by sticking to the idea of convergence. During her 16-year tenure, the "Mutti" (mummy) and trained scientist traveled to Beijing a record 12 times and took a keen interest in forging business and technological ties with China.
2022 marks the 50th anniversary of the China-Germany diplomatic relationship. Since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1972, the multifaceted Beijing-Germany bonds have been augmented through regular dialogue mechanisms on trade, investment and cooperation in the areas of environment, culture and scientific sectors.
Beijing was Berlin's largest trading partner in 2020 and it is likely to retain its position in 2021 for the sixth consecutive time. The deepened economic draws are creating a snowball effect on people-to-people exchanges and the broader political relationship as the Chinese population in Germany has doubled over the last 10 years and the new German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is committed to preserving the legacy of the "Iron Lady" Merkel who evaded taking a tougher line in diplomacy.
Scholz places a premium on sustaining close communication and cooperation with China to tackle global challenges like climate change and pandemic and regional affairs such as the Afghanistan crisis and Iran nuclear issue. A brief and concise German readout of the telephonic conversation between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Chancellor Scholz in December 2021 described the two major economies had more or less identical views on international crises and were keen to shore up trade and investment relations.
German leading business leaders expected this constructive alliance to be reinvigorated. Herbert Diess, chairman of the board of management of Volkswagen Group, sought "more cooperation and presence" in China to "use Chinese speed and local technology platforms to remain relevant" in the global New Energy Vehicle (NEV) market. Collaboration and expansion of economic relations would further allow his company to lift its share in the fast-growing Chinese new energy auto market.
Siemens CEO and President Ronald Busch also aspired for a "peaceful exchange" with a country that "has every right to be confident" after pulling one billion people out of poverty and establishing a veritable middle class over the last 20 years. He cited the important role of Chinese solar panels in Germany's energy transition.
In his first formal briefing to the Bundestag, Germany's parliament, Scholz called for multilateralism. During a conversation with Xi later on, he vowed to advance the all-round Sino-German strategic partnership and expressed willingness to work with China to uphold a multilateral world. It's indeed deplorable that a nervous Washington immediately sent threatening signals to Berlin about the return of "bare-knuckled U.S. unilateralism" while mounting unwarranted pressure over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and military expenditure.
Against this backdrop, China and Germany should be mindful of destabilizing activities by the U.S. that aim to unsettle and disintegrate their close bilateral affinity. The two big economies, along with the EU, need to tone down differences and adhere to cooperation, which is crucial to countering much bigger economic, health and security challenges.
It could be disastrous for the rules-based international order and global economy if any of the two countries bow out from the path of mutual trust and respect to "exert influence" or encroach on the other's domestic matters. U.S. President Joe Biden may like Germany to line up behind his perverse foreign policy; Germany would adopt a pragmatic and economy-oriented approach it has already pledged.
The high-level interactions offer an opportunity to buttress the longstanding partnership that began with Merkel's welcoming of the Chinese premier in Berlin to hold the first Chinese-German intergovernmental consultations in June 2011 and strengthen cooperation on resolving international crises, reforming the World Trade Organization and pursuing climate protection, arms control and sustainable development based on United Nations Agenda 2030.
In the sixth government-to-government talks with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, held virtually in April 2021 due to the pandemic, Merkel reaffirmed China and Germany could play an important role in containing the pandemic by working together. Stressing on the significance of the China-EU investment deal, she represented the agreement as a cornerstone to foster economic relations, mutual market access and reciprocity.
The six declarations of intent and one action plan included joint economic projects, environmental and climate policy and cooperation in science and research, health, food safety, transport, and labor and social affairs. A slew of assurances and Merkel's support for openness and rejection of isolation and protectionism elevated the China-Germany relationship to a new level.
Scholz too rates the relationship highly and has committed himself to the one-China principle. Contrary to the claims that Berlin has no intention to hold bilaterals of cabinet officials at an early date, the chancellor is eager for the next round of intergovernmental consultations to deepen economic and trade cooperation as well as making full use of the "fast track" his predecessor suggested last year to facilitate personnel movement and stabilize global industrial and supply chains.
China-Germany ties are heading down the right direction with a focus on economic growth, tackling global issues and contributing to the peaceful resolution of international crises. The U.S., facing immense domestic challenges, may step up efforts to undermine the relationship. In view of that, China and Germany should ensure no one fouls up their enduring partnership and the world's second- and fourth-largest economies continue to protect their interests and bring stability to international trade.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-02-09/China-Germany-enduring-partnership-needs-to-be-protected-17vtKqyMrhm/index.html
Protecting national interests and maintaining good relations with all states of the world to advance the country's economy is Germany's legitimate right as a sovereign nation. Berlin's objective and neutral approach in international dealings or crises such as in Ukraine should neither be questioned nor inequitably linked with a decline in reputation.
Despite mounting pressure on Germany to downgrade diplomatic ties and take a harder stance on China, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel obstinately refused to intervene in Chinese internal affairs and advocated building on a close and cordial economic relationship by sticking to the idea of convergence. During her 16-year tenure, the "Mutti" (mummy) and trained scientist traveled to Beijing a record 12 times and took a keen interest in forging business and technological ties with China.
2022 marks the 50th anniversary of the China-Germany diplomatic relationship. Since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1972, the multifaceted Beijing-Germany bonds have been augmented through regular dialogue mechanisms on trade, investment and cooperation in the areas of environment, culture and scientific sectors.
Beijing was Berlin's largest trading partner in 2020 and it is likely to retain its position in 2021 for the sixth consecutive time. The deepened economic draws are creating a snowball effect on people-to-people exchanges and the broader political relationship as the Chinese population in Germany has doubled over the last 10 years and the new German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is committed to preserving the legacy of the "Iron Lady" Merkel who evaded taking a tougher line in diplomacy.
Scholz places a premium on sustaining close communication and cooperation with China to tackle global challenges like climate change and pandemic and regional affairs such as the Afghanistan crisis and Iran nuclear issue. A brief and concise German readout of the telephonic conversation between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Chancellor Scholz in December 2021 described the two major economies had more or less identical views on international crises and were keen to shore up trade and investment relations.
German leading business leaders expected this constructive alliance to be reinvigorated. Herbert Diess, chairman of the board of management of Volkswagen Group, sought "more cooperation and presence" in China to "use Chinese speed and local technology platforms to remain relevant" in the global New Energy Vehicle (NEV) market. Collaboration and expansion of economic relations would further allow his company to lift its share in the fast-growing Chinese new energy auto market.
Siemens CEO and President Ronald Busch also aspired for a "peaceful exchange" with a country that "has every right to be confident" after pulling one billion people out of poverty and establishing a veritable middle class over the last 20 years. He cited the important role of Chinese solar panels in Germany's energy transition.
In his first formal briefing to the Bundestag, Germany's parliament, Scholz called for multilateralism. During a conversation with Xi later on, he vowed to advance the all-round Sino-German strategic partnership and expressed willingness to work with China to uphold a multilateral world. It's indeed deplorable that a nervous Washington immediately sent threatening signals to Berlin about the return of "bare-knuckled U.S. unilateralism" while mounting unwarranted pressure over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and military expenditure.
Against this backdrop, China and Germany should be mindful of destabilizing activities by the U.S. that aim to unsettle and disintegrate their close bilateral affinity. The two big economies, along with the EU, need to tone down differences and adhere to cooperation, which is crucial to countering much bigger economic, health and security challenges.
It could be disastrous for the rules-based international order and global economy if any of the two countries bow out from the path of mutual trust and respect to "exert influence" or encroach on the other's domestic matters. U.S. President Joe Biden may like Germany to line up behind his perverse foreign policy; Germany would adopt a pragmatic and economy-oriented approach it has already pledged.
The high-level interactions offer an opportunity to buttress the longstanding partnership that began with Merkel's welcoming of the Chinese premier in Berlin to hold the first Chinese-German intergovernmental consultations in June 2011 and strengthen cooperation on resolving international crises, reforming the World Trade Organization and pursuing climate protection, arms control and sustainable development based on United Nations Agenda 2030.
In the sixth government-to-government talks with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, held virtually in April 2021 due to the pandemic, Merkel reaffirmed China and Germany could play an important role in containing the pandemic by working together. Stressing on the significance of the China-EU investment deal, she represented the agreement as a cornerstone to foster economic relations, mutual market access and reciprocity.
The six declarations of intent and one action plan included joint economic projects, environmental and climate policy and cooperation in science and research, health, food safety, transport, and labor and social affairs. A slew of assurances and Merkel's support for openness and rejection of isolation and protectionism elevated the China-Germany relationship to a new level.
Scholz too rates the relationship highly and has committed himself to the one-China principle. Contrary to the claims that Berlin has no intention to hold bilaterals of cabinet officials at an early date, the chancellor is eager for the next round of intergovernmental consultations to deepen economic and trade cooperation as well as making full use of the "fast track" his predecessor suggested last year to facilitate personnel movement and stabilize global industrial and supply chains.
China-Germany ties are heading down the right direction with a focus on economic growth, tackling global issues and contributing to the peaceful resolution of international crises. The U.S., facing immense domestic challenges, may step up efforts to undermine the relationship. In view of that, China and Germany should ensure no one fouls up their enduring partnership and the world's second- and fourth-largest economies continue to protect their interests and bring stability to international trade.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-02-09/China-Germany-enduring-partnership-needs-to-be-protected-17vtKqyMrhm/index.html
Why does Biden's China policy need revolutionary changes?
By: Azhar Azam
After 15 years of negotiations, China took its rightful place at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Dec 11, 2001. Beijing's membership and integration into the global economy – a "pivotal event" in the multilateral trading system history – underpinned China's economic growth, brought positive impact on world prosperity and "marked a significant step" for the group to become a truly world organization.
Even before becoming a member of the WTO, China was making significant strides. Applauding Beijing's radical economic transformation, market reforms that spurred two decades of unprecedented growth and poverty mitigation measures as well as declaring isolation would be "unworkable, counterproductive and potentially dangerous", then-US President Bill Clinton in 1997 called for engagement with Beijing. "Our objective is not containment and conflict; it is cooperation."
As a result, he "strongly" backed Beijing's "rightful" admission and place into WTO and global economy to gain improved access for American goods and services in a "great nation," he predicted to ripen into the second-largest trader in 2020.
The strategy worked. Between 2001 and 2006, the US merchandise exports to China rose 187 percent with services trade surplus of $2.6 billion in 2005, according to the US Treasury Department's press release titled "Benefits of Trade with China." The positive impetus amped up the country's economy as the US exports to the rest of the world also grew 38 percent.
In the face of the worst of diplomatic and political rows, the US Census Bureau data suggests Washington's goods exports to Beijing, for the first time ever, would easily beat the $150 billion barrier in 2021. An about eight-fold increase in US exports to China since 2001 emphasizes Washington has an insatiable desire to leap at the opportunity provided by the world' second largest economy.
Per the Office of the US Trade Representative, America's services trade surplus as of 2020 totaled about $25 billion. The US goods and services trade with China supported an estimated 758,000 jobs in 2019 alongside $59 billion Chinese investments in 2019 supporting another 156,000 American jobs. A plurality of US companies enjoys a strong presence in China and they don't intend to leave the biggest consumer market.
Beijing in 2013 replaced Washington as the world's largest trading nation, beating Clinton's prediction to become second largest trader by 2020. In 2014, China overtook the US as the largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's "pivot to Asia" was guided by a single strategic objective: contain the rise of China by controlling the costs of America's hegemony and restoring the US international reputation.
For decades, president after president drove the world into turbulence to assert the US dominance, leaving their successors to start from scratch, spend much of their tenures in reviving the country's global trustworthiness and wipe the slate of the US sins such as practiced in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nevertheless, credibility, the core element of the US big-ticket militaristic policy, within allies has been hit hard by America's chaotic withdrawal from Kabul and would be even more costly and dangerous if it goes for a war with China. The US is devoid of the mettle to accept China as a major power. It should come out from the state of denial, retreat to the one-China policy and undertake steps to avoid confrontation and decoupling of the two biggest economies.
Washington feels its dominant leadership model is at stake by China's advent as a key economic and peace player and the global embrace of Chinese cooperative policy. The Biden administration is hedging its bets on bolstering alliances in a bid to cut Beijing's economy with the rest of the world while avidly seeking to set the "common-sense guardrails" so that "(extreme) competition does not veer into conflict."
Yet by picking winners in technologies and industries, Biden is weakening the open multilateral trading system and international rule of law. His protectionist "Buy American" plan, an initiative considered a blockade of free trade by the US partners in 2017 and shoving inflation upward with tariffs in place, also signals to penalize US allies whom he has been courting to compete with China and could encourage them to retaliate.
Biden, like Trump, lacks a clear objective and he should set an explicit goal in his China policy, so is the argument from the proponents of medium-term tensions to achieve long-term equilibrium with China. But the world – realizing the era when the West ruled and Asia listened has gone and the idea to splinter the world through ideological battles in two blocs can't resolve the pressing global challenges – will push back against this risky strategy that advocates to abandon engagement and pursue competition with China.
The US president couldn't make America more credible and respected just by copying his predecessors. Earlier pandemic and now the supply chain disruptions have upturned the international economic and trading system, underscoring the critical importance of collaboration between the two deeply intertwined economies, China and the US.
Revolutionizing Washington's China policy on the principles of cooperation, nonaggression and economic integration could be a workable solution for Biden to counter the daunting economic, health and climate challenges America and the world is gripped with. Only such an approach of mutual coexistence from Biden can ameliorate the US image and support its commitment for a stable and prosperous world.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared in "China Daily":
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202202/04/WS61fcf479a310cdd39bc84b92.html
After 15 years of negotiations, China took its rightful place at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Dec 11, 2001. Beijing's membership and integration into the global economy – a "pivotal event" in the multilateral trading system history – underpinned China's economic growth, brought positive impact on world prosperity and "marked a significant step" for the group to become a truly world organization.
Even before becoming a member of the WTO, China was making significant strides. Applauding Beijing's radical economic transformation, market reforms that spurred two decades of unprecedented growth and poverty mitigation measures as well as declaring isolation would be "unworkable, counterproductive and potentially dangerous", then-US President Bill Clinton in 1997 called for engagement with Beijing. "Our objective is not containment and conflict; it is cooperation."
As a result, he "strongly" backed Beijing's "rightful" admission and place into WTO and global economy to gain improved access for American goods and services in a "great nation," he predicted to ripen into the second-largest trader in 2020.
The strategy worked. Between 2001 and 2006, the US merchandise exports to China rose 187 percent with services trade surplus of $2.6 billion in 2005, according to the US Treasury Department's press release titled "Benefits of Trade with China." The positive impetus amped up the country's economy as the US exports to the rest of the world also grew 38 percent.
In the face of the worst of diplomatic and political rows, the US Census Bureau data suggests Washington's goods exports to Beijing, for the first time ever, would easily beat the $150 billion barrier in 2021. An about eight-fold increase in US exports to China since 2001 emphasizes Washington has an insatiable desire to leap at the opportunity provided by the world' second largest economy.
Per the Office of the US Trade Representative, America's services trade surplus as of 2020 totaled about $25 billion. The US goods and services trade with China supported an estimated 758,000 jobs in 2019 alongside $59 billion Chinese investments in 2019 supporting another 156,000 American jobs. A plurality of US companies enjoys a strong presence in China and they don't intend to leave the biggest consumer market.
Beijing in 2013 replaced Washington as the world's largest trading nation, beating Clinton's prediction to become second largest trader by 2020. In 2014, China overtook the US as the largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's "pivot to Asia" was guided by a single strategic objective: contain the rise of China by controlling the costs of America's hegemony and restoring the US international reputation.
For decades, president after president drove the world into turbulence to assert the US dominance, leaving their successors to start from scratch, spend much of their tenures in reviving the country's global trustworthiness and wipe the slate of the US sins such as practiced in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nevertheless, credibility, the core element of the US big-ticket militaristic policy, within allies has been hit hard by America's chaotic withdrawal from Kabul and would be even more costly and dangerous if it goes for a war with China. The US is devoid of the mettle to accept China as a major power. It should come out from the state of denial, retreat to the one-China policy and undertake steps to avoid confrontation and decoupling of the two biggest economies.
Washington feels its dominant leadership model is at stake by China's advent as a key economic and peace player and the global embrace of Chinese cooperative policy. The Biden administration is hedging its bets on bolstering alliances in a bid to cut Beijing's economy with the rest of the world while avidly seeking to set the "common-sense guardrails" so that "(extreme) competition does not veer into conflict."
Yet by picking winners in technologies and industries, Biden is weakening the open multilateral trading system and international rule of law. His protectionist "Buy American" plan, an initiative considered a blockade of free trade by the US partners in 2017 and shoving inflation upward with tariffs in place, also signals to penalize US allies whom he has been courting to compete with China and could encourage them to retaliate.
Biden, like Trump, lacks a clear objective and he should set an explicit goal in his China policy, so is the argument from the proponents of medium-term tensions to achieve long-term equilibrium with China. But the world – realizing the era when the West ruled and Asia listened has gone and the idea to splinter the world through ideological battles in two blocs can't resolve the pressing global challenges – will push back against this risky strategy that advocates to abandon engagement and pursue competition with China.
The US president couldn't make America more credible and respected just by copying his predecessors. Earlier pandemic and now the supply chain disruptions have upturned the international economic and trading system, underscoring the critical importance of collaboration between the two deeply intertwined economies, China and the US.
Revolutionizing Washington's China policy on the principles of cooperation, nonaggression and economic integration could be a workable solution for Biden to counter the daunting economic, health and climate challenges America and the world is gripped with. Only such an approach of mutual coexistence from Biden can ameliorate the US image and support its commitment for a stable and prosperous world.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared in "China Daily":
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202202/04/WS61fcf479a310cdd39bc84b92.html
Asia-Pacific won't allow Biden to disturb peace-growth equation
By: Azhar Azam
Joe Biden isn't keen to strengthen trade ties with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In response to criticism that his strategy lacked an economic component, the U.S. president last October vowed to kick-start discussions on developing a regional economic framework but his aides immediately spelled out the initiative he referred to "is not a trade deal."
So far, the administration has provided very few details as to how it would engage Asia-Pacific. The lukewarm attempt has been lamented by the regional countries and is causing frustration in Biden's aides as his Indo-Pacific Coordinator Kurt Campbell stressed the U.S. should remain deeply involved "diplomatically, militarily, comprehensively (and) strategically" as well as economically in the region.
Washington promises to establish "common goals" on economic cooperation with the Indo-Pacific in early 2022; still it remains tight-lipped on rejoining trade deals such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTTP), Donald Trump withdrew from in 2017, over fear of losing American jobs.
Increased trade is essential to boost economic relations and has rightly been a primary focus of the Asia-Pacific, which has greatly benefited from China's rise and counts Beijing as its largest trading partner. Campbell's recognition of Beijing's "critical and important role" and pursuit for "a kind of coexistence" is a subtle acknowledgement the regional countries aren't comfortable with the United States' doomed, overly China-oriented Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at jeopardizing regional peace and growth.
China wasn't always considered a national security threat for the U.S.; it's just a recent phenomenon, shaking the White House. In 2014, then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said "China and the United States represent the greatest economic alliance trading partnership in the history of humankind, and it is only going to grow. The State Department today is very clear that economic policy is foreign policy and foreign policy is economic policy."
Noting business and trade could strengthen national security, the U.S. State Department in early 2015 brought up an estimate that the $300 billion trade deficit with China could turn into $300 billion trade surplus and add three million new jobs in America if Chinese people were to consume U.S.-made goods and services at the same rate Japanese did.
Within a few years, Washington's pro-trade approach toward Beijing has been replaced by acrimony, hostility and recrimination. The U.S. administrations of late are more inclined to build an anti-China alliance in Asia-Pacific and elsewhere over contrived national security concerns, putting America's and Americans interests behind.
A comprehensive, nonviolent regional economic engagement continues to be a top priority of the Biden administration. It isn't. Not only does the U.S. president's Indo-Pacific economic framework lack a key element of trade; it purports to counter and offset China's "increasing economic influence" and "recent advances" into regional trade agreements including the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
RCEP entered into force in January and brought together 15 East Asian and Pacific nations of different economic sizes and stages of development to form the world's largest trading block. A United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) study estimates the new Asia-Pacific free trade agreement would increase interregional trade by $42 billion, benefiting Japan the most with its exports expecting to rise by $20 billion.
The study raised the profile of RCEP, which is predicted to eventually eliminated 90 percent of tariffs between members, and emphasized it will account for almost one-third of global GDP compared to the South American trade bloc Mercosur (2.4 percent), Africa's continental free trade area (2.9 percent), the European Union (17.9 percent) and the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement (28 percent).
About 60 percent of seaborne trade, the UNCTAD calculates, passes through Asia and the South China Sea (SCS) carrying one-third of global shipping. The maritime trade is not only crucial for China, Japan and South Korea that rely on the Strait of Malacca, the CSIS ChinaPower reckoned the closure of waterways – connecting the SCS and the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean – could precipitate global supply chain disruptions, making Southeast Asia particularly vulnerable by inflicting up to $32 billion in damages.
Biden's Indo-Pacific economic framework intends to address issues such as trade facilitation, digital economy standards, supply chain resiliency, infrastructure, decarbonization and clean energy, export controls, tax and anti-corruption. But the regional countries, seeing China success a boon for the growth in the region, won't settle for anything less "substantial" to the CPTPP, which has "steadily garnered credibility and appeal."
After regional states expressed deep concerns over AUKUS, the trilateral alliance security pact, undermining regional peace by triggering an arms race and posing risks of nuclear proliferation, China and the ASEAN agreed to enhance mutual trust and maintain peace and stability in the SCS and promote active and comprehensive economic relations in trade, supply chain and other important areas.
Peaceful relations with all nations align with regional values of peace and impartiality. Rather than giving an affirmative response to the U.S. vexatious calls of "freedom" and "openness," they want stability in Asia-Pacific to quickly recover from the catastrophic impacts of the pandemic. Since Washington's push to rally alliances is geared toward stoking tensions by seeking support for a vague framework, not many countries are able to back the initiative that does little to bolster trade and concentrates profoundly on disturbing the regional growth-peace equation.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-01-25/Asia-Pacific-won-t-allow-Biden-to-disturb-peace-growth-equation-175wUadlHig/index.html
Joe Biden isn't keen to strengthen trade ties with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In response to criticism that his strategy lacked an economic component, the U.S. president last October vowed to kick-start discussions on developing a regional economic framework but his aides immediately spelled out the initiative he referred to "is not a trade deal."
So far, the administration has provided very few details as to how it would engage Asia-Pacific. The lukewarm attempt has been lamented by the regional countries and is causing frustration in Biden's aides as his Indo-Pacific Coordinator Kurt Campbell stressed the U.S. should remain deeply involved "diplomatically, militarily, comprehensively (and) strategically" as well as economically in the region.
Washington promises to establish "common goals" on economic cooperation with the Indo-Pacific in early 2022; still it remains tight-lipped on rejoining trade deals such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTTP), Donald Trump withdrew from in 2017, over fear of losing American jobs.
Increased trade is essential to boost economic relations and has rightly been a primary focus of the Asia-Pacific, which has greatly benefited from China's rise and counts Beijing as its largest trading partner. Campbell's recognition of Beijing's "critical and important role" and pursuit for "a kind of coexistence" is a subtle acknowledgement the regional countries aren't comfortable with the United States' doomed, overly China-oriented Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at jeopardizing regional peace and growth.
China wasn't always considered a national security threat for the U.S.; it's just a recent phenomenon, shaking the White House. In 2014, then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said "China and the United States represent the greatest economic alliance trading partnership in the history of humankind, and it is only going to grow. The State Department today is very clear that economic policy is foreign policy and foreign policy is economic policy."
Noting business and trade could strengthen national security, the U.S. State Department in early 2015 brought up an estimate that the $300 billion trade deficit with China could turn into $300 billion trade surplus and add three million new jobs in America if Chinese people were to consume U.S.-made goods and services at the same rate Japanese did.
Within a few years, Washington's pro-trade approach toward Beijing has been replaced by acrimony, hostility and recrimination. The U.S. administrations of late are more inclined to build an anti-China alliance in Asia-Pacific and elsewhere over contrived national security concerns, putting America's and Americans interests behind.
A comprehensive, nonviolent regional economic engagement continues to be a top priority of the Biden administration. It isn't. Not only does the U.S. president's Indo-Pacific economic framework lack a key element of trade; it purports to counter and offset China's "increasing economic influence" and "recent advances" into regional trade agreements including the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
RCEP entered into force in January and brought together 15 East Asian and Pacific nations of different economic sizes and stages of development to form the world's largest trading block. A United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) study estimates the new Asia-Pacific free trade agreement would increase interregional trade by $42 billion, benefiting Japan the most with its exports expecting to rise by $20 billion.
The study raised the profile of RCEP, which is predicted to eventually eliminated 90 percent of tariffs between members, and emphasized it will account for almost one-third of global GDP compared to the South American trade bloc Mercosur (2.4 percent), Africa's continental free trade area (2.9 percent), the European Union (17.9 percent) and the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement (28 percent).
About 60 percent of seaborne trade, the UNCTAD calculates, passes through Asia and the South China Sea (SCS) carrying one-third of global shipping. The maritime trade is not only crucial for China, Japan and South Korea that rely on the Strait of Malacca, the CSIS ChinaPower reckoned the closure of waterways – connecting the SCS and the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean – could precipitate global supply chain disruptions, making Southeast Asia particularly vulnerable by inflicting up to $32 billion in damages.
Biden's Indo-Pacific economic framework intends to address issues such as trade facilitation, digital economy standards, supply chain resiliency, infrastructure, decarbonization and clean energy, export controls, tax and anti-corruption. But the regional countries, seeing China success a boon for the growth in the region, won't settle for anything less "substantial" to the CPTPP, which has "steadily garnered credibility and appeal."
After regional states expressed deep concerns over AUKUS, the trilateral alliance security pact, undermining regional peace by triggering an arms race and posing risks of nuclear proliferation, China and the ASEAN agreed to enhance mutual trust and maintain peace and stability in the SCS and promote active and comprehensive economic relations in trade, supply chain and other important areas.
Peaceful relations with all nations align with regional values of peace and impartiality. Rather than giving an affirmative response to the U.S. vexatious calls of "freedom" and "openness," they want stability in Asia-Pacific to quickly recover from the catastrophic impacts of the pandemic. Since Washington's push to rally alliances is geared toward stoking tensions by seeking support for a vague framework, not many countries are able to back the initiative that does little to bolster trade and concentrates profoundly on disturbing the regional growth-peace equation.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-01-25/Asia-Pacific-won-t-allow-Biden-to-disturb-peace-growth-equation-175wUadlHig/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)