Geo-Strategic Trend - 84. page

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who was visiting the United Arab Emirates, said he wanted to promote greater use of local currency settlements in Sino-Arab trade and investment. Wang said that the two countries should raise the level of financial and investment cooperation, “promote the use of local currency settlement in bilateral trade and investment,” and work together to build the Sino-Arab “Belt and Road” international exchange.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov mentioned the same issue during a meeting with Wang Yi in Guangxi, China. He said that Russia and China should promote settlement in local currency through autonomous innovation in the technology industry and get rid of the international payment system controlled by the West.

In recent years, Russia, hit by U.S. sanctions, has sought to promote “de-dollarization.” The BBC previously reported that the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), of which Russia is a member, will promote trading in its own currency in 2020, bypassing the US dollar and the euro. The alliance also includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

Recently, the share of U.S. dollar settlements in China-Russia trade has also been decreasing. According to the Financial Times, 90 percent of Russia-Chinese trade was settled in U.S. dollars in 2015, but by Q1 of 2020, that share dropped to less than 50 percent.

Also recently, China has emphasized the importance of the “internationalization” of the RMB. Fang Xinghai, Vice Chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), said in June 2020 that external financial pressure has made the internationalization of the RMB an urgent issue and it should be accelerated over the next 10 years. Against the backdrop of the U.S.-China trade war, he also mentioned that many Chinese financial institutions and enterprises conduct their business internationally using the U.S. dollar payment system. However, the Russian experience has forced China to take early precautions and respond well.

In addition, China and Iran recently signed an agreement to invest US$400 billion over the next 25 years, the details of which have not been made public. However, on March 28, Chinese scholar Jin Canrong quoted Iranian reports on his Weibo account which said that “oil and other commodity trade transactions between China and Iran will be settled in RMB and China’s new digital currency, avoiding the US dollar.”

Source: Central News Agency, March 28, 2021
https://www.cna.com.tw/news/acn/202103280182.aspx

On March 22, EU foreign ministers decided to impose sanctions on four Chinese officials and one institution because they violated the human rights of the Muslim minority in Xinjiang. China quickly reacted by announcing retaliatory sanctions against ten individuals and four entities in Europe, including European Parliament members, think tanks and scholars. In response, the European Parliament cancelled a review meeting on the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), casting a shadow over whether it can be implemented in the future. Winkler Gyula, vice-chair of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, reacted quickly, saying that, “In view of the latest developments in the relationship between the EU and China today, especially the unacceptable sanctions (that China issued), the European Parliament has decided to abolish the original plan for China and Europe scheduled for the 23rd, which is a review meeting of the Comprehensive Investment Agreement.” Several members of the European Parliament also made it clear that it would be impossible to continue the review of the agreement if their colleagues were still on China’s sanction list. The EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) was concluded in principle by the leaders of the EU Council in December 2020, pending ratification by the European Parliament.

At a regular press conference on March 23, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying denounced these sanctions as “being based on lies and false information”  and criticized the EU in a strong tone. “The European side cannot expect to talk about cooperation on the one hand, while conducting sanctions on the other, to the detriment of China’s rights and interests. … The European side should reflect on itself.”

Thorsten Benner, director of the Berlin-based German think tank Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI), told Radio Free Asia that the EU’s use of the mechanism of the recently adopted Magnitsky Act to impose sanctions on China, Russia, Myanmar and other human rights abusers simultaneously was a “symbolic move” that had been considered for a long time. He felt that Beijing’s choice of high-profile counter-measures was “extraordinary” and that the approach of targeting scholars and think tanks that promote China-EU exchanges was “extreme.”

“I think Beijing’s is attempting to dominate the escalating Europe-China relationship, showing the EU that whatever you do, I will hit back harder is to show the EU that you are no match for us (China).” European countries have always had economic considerations in their policies toward China, but Benner predicts that China’s assertive approach will have “side effects” and that “Beijing is pushing the Europeans into the arms of Washington and putting the politicians who endorsed the CAI, led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in an untenable position.”

The day before, the United States also joined forces with the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada to sanction a number of Chinese officials. The U.S. Secretary of State also issued a joint statement with the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand condemning the Chinese government’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

In the press conference, Hua Chunying not only named the past records of the United States, Britain, Canada and France mentioning colonization or violations of human rights, but also talked about the history of Nazi Germany’s holocaust of millions of Jews. Hua declared that China is not afraid of being isolated by the so-called “democratic alliance” and boasted that China’s circle of friends is bigger. “We are not worried at all! The U.S., U.K., and Canada plus the EU only account for about 11 percent of the world’s population, while China accounts for 1/5 of the world’s population.”

For Alex Dukalskis, a professor at the University of Dublin, China’s use of the history of Nazi is “extremely ironic” and flawed. “European countries have been reflecting on these histories for decades, and Germany in particular has been frank about (its mistakes) in this regard. –This is exactly what China has been unwilling to do. From a diplomatic point of view, these Chinese arguments and insults are hardly effective in convincing Europeans to continue the communication. Human rights is part of European values and politics.”

Source: Radio Free Asia, March 23, 2021
https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/junshiwaijiao/jt-03232021134339.html

Global Times recently reported, based on Indian media messages, that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi sent mail not long ago to Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan. The letter expressed the willingness to establish a “close and friendly relationship” with Pakistan. The “immediate priority” is to create an atmosphere of trust free from terror and hostility. The Modi letter sent greetings to the people of Pakistan on the occasion of “Pakistan Day.” He also gave his best wishes for their fights against the Covid-19 pandemic. According to Indian media, there have been “positive changes” seen in the relationship between India and Pakistan. Last month, India and Pakistan agreed to stop cross-border firefights in the Kashmir region. On March 22, a delegation of Pakistani officials arrived in India to participate in a meeting of the Indus River Standing Committee. This is the first such dialogue between India and Pakistan in two and a half years. Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla also said recently that India hopes to maintain a good-neighborly and friendly relationship with Pakistan and is committed to solving problems bilaterally.

Source: Global Times, March 24, 2021
https://world.huanqiu.com/article/42R9xEevvWm

Radio France Internationale (RFI) Chinese Edition recently reported that, according to the numbers released by Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), last year there was around CA$43.6 billion (around HK$169 billion, or US$34.6 billion) in money transferred from the Hong Kong banking system to the Canadian banking system via EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer). This is a record high since 2012. The total is the equivalent of moving around two percent of all of Hong Kong’s savings accounts. This 2020 amount represents a 10 percent increase from 2019, or 46 percent increase from 2016. Hong Kong has one of the largest Canadian overseas communities. There are around 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong. According to Canadian Equitable Bank, since June 2020 when the Hong Kong National Security Law took effect, the bank saw a high increase of savings funds flowing from Hong Kong. This number only includes transactions larger than CA$10,000. Reuters interviewed many immigration advisors, lawyers and real estate agents and found a lot of Hong Kong residents are eager to start their new life in Canada as soon as the Covid-19 pandemic travel restrictions are relaxed. They intend to bring millions of Canadian Dollars’ worth of wealth with them. Britain and Australia are two other hot destinations.

Source: RFI Chinese, March 26, 2021
https://bit.ly/3lVZlPC

While the WHO expert mission’s conclusions on the origin of the new coronavirus are still waiting for the Chinese side’s endorsement, Robert Redfield, the recently departed director of the CDC, told CNN on Friday that he believes the new coronavirus was “leaked” from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), Chinese Academy of Sciences and began spreading in September through October 2019. There is no clear evidence that the new coronavirus was leaked from the WIV. Redfield emphasized that this is his “personal opinion.”

“I still think the most likely ideology of this pathogen in Wuhan was that it escaped from a laboratory. Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine,” Redfield told CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. “Science will eventually figure it out.

“It’s not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect a laboratory worker,” Redfield said. He did not think it makes “biological sense” that the virus would be able to spread so well between humans if it had just made the jump from animals to humans. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has been a focus of the theory that the virus escaped from a lab. “I do not believe this somehow came from a bat to a human.”

The WIV has a P4 virus research laboratory, which is the only scientific institution owned by China that can study the most virulent infectious disease viruses with the highest safety requirements. It is about 14 km from Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Market.

Some scientists have long said that the new coronavirus could have come from an incident at the WIV, but a joint WHO-China expert panel came to the preliminary conclusion a few weeks ago that the hypothesis that the new coronavirus came from an incident at the WIV was “highly unlikely.” The panel proposed that the most likely scenario was that it was transmitted to humans through an unknown animal as an intermediate host to humans.

However, the WHO’s preliminary conclusions were highly controversial. According to later statements that the WHO experts involved in the mission made, the most critical issue was that China refused to provide the WHO experts with original data on the first patients who appeared in Wuhan, . In response, the Biden administration said it had “deep concerns” about the circumstances of the WHO expert mission and demanded that Beijing be transparent and release all information. The U.S. also called for a truly independent international investigation.

A year after the Wuhan outbreak, China finally agreed to a joint investigation that Chinese and international experts would conduct.   The final investigation report has been postponed several times, except for a highly controversial press conference on February 9. On March 5, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced that the joint investigation report should be released on March 15. Then on March 16, a WHO spokesperson announced that “It is highly likely that the report will be published next week.” Three days later, China responded via Western social networks that Chinese experts received the report in English on March 17 and that its release next week would depend on discussions between Chinese and international experts.

It has been pointed out that the report of the WHO Joint Expert Group on New Coronary Traceability Research, which is about 300 pages long, must be approved by more than 10 experts from China and the international community before it can be made public. After the publication, WHO will study the report and propose the next step to member states.

On March 4, more than 30 scientists wrote in the Wall Street Journal and the French newspaper Le Monde requesting an independent scientific mission to visit China and trace the origin. WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic responded that the WHO could neither get China to accept a fully independent investigation nor a report that would not be in its interest.

When the outbreak of the new corona virus occurred in Hubei, China, Le Monde reported that the current dispute between international scientists involved in the investigation and the Chinese side may be over. Although Chinese authorities tried to get the outside world to accept that the outbreak occurred in December, additional information suggests that it was much earlier. The March 18 issue of the Science journal cites the latest research that points to human-to-human transmission of the new corona outbreak in Hubei in October 2019.

Source: Radio France International, March 26, 2021
https://rfi.my/7FlN.T

For the first time, on Friday, March 19, 2021, the Federal Council of the government of Switzerland adopted a public strategy for China. The Strategy sets out the objectives and measures for Swiss policy on China for the period from 2021 through 2024.

“The new China Strategy represents the Federal Council’s response to current geopolitical developments. Neither growing competition between major powers nor polarisation around China and the US is in Switzerland’s interests.”

The report says that its China policy is based on three principles: pursuing an independent policy on China, advocating the inclusion of China in the liberal international order, and a balanced, coherent and coordinated approach to China. It lists four thematic focus areas: peace and security including a human rights dialogue; prosperity such as trade, investment, education, and tourism; sustainability with a concentration on climate and the environment, health, a sustainable financial sector; digitalization, or “intact digital space that is governed by the principles of international law.”

According to Deutsche Welle, the Chinese Embassy in Switzerland responded to the Swiss “China Strategy” document on March 22, saying that although the document recognizes China’s great achievements in economic development and makes a positive assessment of Sino-Swiss relations, Beijing criticizes Switzerland for making unfounded accusations and attacks on China’s political system, minority policies and human rights development.

The Chinese embassy wrote in a statement: “Switzerland has attached some malicious labels on China and sent wrong signals to the outside world. These statements deviate from basic facts and are not conducive to the healthy development of Sino-Swiss relations. China expresses its firm opposition to this.”

Source: the official website of the Swiss Government
https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releases.msg-id-82757.html
Deutsche Welle, March 22, 2021
https://p.dw.com/p/3qwPc

Radio Free Asia (RFA) Chinese Edition recently reported that Vietnam has placed orders to acquire a large quantity of Covid-19 vaccines from the United States, Great Britain and Russia. The only missing source of supply is China. The Health Bureau of Ho Chi Minh City recently submitted a proposal to import five million doses of Moderna’s new Covid-19 vaccine from the United States. The Ministry of Health of Vietnam is also negotiating with other American manufacturers to obtain more vaccines. In February, Vietnam received 117,000 doses of the vaccine from the United Kingdom. At the end of February, Vietnam also approved Russia’s Satellite-V vaccine, possibly ordering a total of 150 million doses. However, Vietnam has never bought a single dose of vaccine from neighboring China. This is in sharp contrast with other ASEAN countries. Analysts have said that Vietnam remains very cautious about the Chinese vaccine since China never played any importance in international vaccine developments before. In the meantime, Vietnam’s attitude towards China is also more complicated. It doesn’t want to follow China too closely.

Source: RFA Chinese, March 14, 2021
https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/Xinwen/5-03142021125113.html