Taiwan news media New Talk reported that the Philippine Coast Guard released photos on August 2, alleging that Philippine fishermen salvaged a 3-meter long, 2-meter wide rocket with debris weighing 100 kilograms off the coast of Mindoro Island at the northern end of the Sulu Sea. Judging from the appearance and text on the wreckage, it may be China’s “Long March 5-B” carrier rocket launched on July 24.
The rocket debris displayed by the Philippine Coast Guard clearly shows the pattern of the Chinese five-star flag. Philippine media reported that there are also Chinese characters on it. The Philippine Space Agency told the media that debris from a Chinese rocket crashed into the waters off the western part of the Philippines. There was no report of damage caused by the debris. That such a large and heavy piece of wreckage did not cause casualties or damage is perhaps just luck.
Source: New Talk, August 3, 2022
https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2022-08-03/795663
All posts by ZYH - 3. page
HSBC Becomes the First Foreign Bank in China to Establish a Chinese Communist Party Branch
Lianhe Zaobao (United Morning Post), a Singapore based newspaper, reported that the financial institution, HSBC Qianhai Securities Co. Ltd., established a branch of the Communist Party of China, becoming the only bank among the seven foreign banks with an investment banking business in mainland China that has established a grassroots organization of the Communist Party in its subsidiaries.
China’s company law requires companies to set up grassroots Communist Party committees, but it does not mandate foreign financial institutions to do so. Foreign media previously reported that HSBC Qianhai Securities set up a party committee of the Communist Party of China, believing that the move might force other foreign banks to follow suit.
According to The Epoch Times, the establishment of the Communist Party branch of HSBC Qianhai Securities comes after its move in April to raise its stake in the joint venture from 51 percent to 90 percent .
At first, in order to facilitate the introduction of foreign capital, they only established party branches in foreign companies secretly. Later it became a completely open requirement. Based on data released by the Organization Department of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, by the end of 2016, 70 percent of foreign-funded enterprises in China had established party branches or committees.
Source: Lianhe Zaobao; Epochtimes, July 22, 2022.
https://www.kzaobao.com/shiju/20220722/121498.html
https://www.epochtimes.com/gb/22/7/22/n13787052.htm
China’s Media Continues to Spread that Covid Virus May Have Come from U.S. Biological Laboratory
China News, a major news media in China, recently published an article titled, “Lancet Scholar Says New Coronavirus May Have Originated in U.S. Biological Laboratory.” The article cited a report from Russia Today. The article stated, “Jeffrey Sachs, chairman of the new crown committee of the international medical journal The Lancet, said that the new coronavirus may not have come from nature. It may have originated from an accident in a U.S. biotech laboratory.”
The article was republished on many media channels in China including Xinhua.
Radio Free Asia pointed out that Chinese media blatantly tampered with the original words of U.S. experts.
According to Radio Free Asia, Sachs made it clear that, “I’m pretty sure it came from biotechnology in American labs — not from nature.” Sachs said so in a speech at a conference hosted by the Spanish think tank GATE Center in mid-June.
Sources:
1. Sina.com, July 2, 2022
https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2022-07-02/doc-imizirav1639787.shtml
http://www.news.cn/world/2022-07/03/c_1211663581.htm
2. Radio Free Asia, July 13, 2022
https://www.wenxuecity.com/news/2022/07/13/11686777.html
Global Times: It Is Not Russia Who ‘Weaponizes’ Food
China’s state media Global Times published an opinion article by Zheng Fengtian, the director of the Rural Development Institute of Renmin University of China, stating that it is not Russia who weaponizes food.
The article said, “Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with the media that the West is trying to ‘shift’ the responsibility for problems in the world’s grain market to Russia. Ukraine, however, has multiple food transportation channels to choose from. Also, Russia will not stop Ukraine’s grain shipments from being shipped out. At the same time, he also announced that Russia’s wheat exports in the next agricultural year will increase to 50 million tons.”
The article continued, “Following its strategic needs, the United States and the West put the responsibility for this global food crisis on Russia and use a number of means to put pressure on Russia to release food. Putin, however, retorted when he had a phone conversation with Italian Prime Minister Draghi. He said, ‘It is groundless for the West to blame Russia for the supply of agricultural products in the international market.’ Putin attributed the current crisis to the sanctions that the United States and the West imposed on Russia. It is the anti-Russian restrictions imposed by the US and the EU that make the situation worse. Indeed, it is precisely because of these economic sanctions that the global food supply chain has been disrupted and food prices have soared. Instead of providing a viable solution, the United States and its allies are currently escalating conflicts by increasingly providing new weapons and equipment, which will only increase future global food security risks.
“When the Russian side expressed its willingness to provide 50 million tons of grain to ‘help overcome the food crisis,’ the United States and the West accused it of ‘blackmail’ because the Russian side proposed that ‘sanctions against Moscow should be lifted.’ A U.S. Pentagon spokesman said Russia weaponized food. In fact, ‘weaponizing food’ is a common practice of the United States. It is precisely because the United States has used grain as a “weapon” many times that grain has become a main source of the problem in the current global trade. Even the developed countries dare not freely hand over grains to the international market.
“On the one hand, the United States continues to add fuel to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and intensifies sanctions against Russia. On the other hand, the United States has made arrangements in its own country ahead of schedule to grab Russia’s share of the world’s food market. According to reports, U.S. President Biden has increased the number of counties eligible for “double crop insurance” nationwide by 681 to 1,935, and the federal government’s investment in domestic fertilizer production has increased from $250 million to $500 million, to stimulate fully the export of American agricultural products and increase the external dependence on American food. It seems that the real intention of the United States is to expand its hegemonic advantages to the field of food security.”
Source: Global Times, June 6, 2022
https://opinion.huanqiu.com/article/48J1rhGFuKN
The U.S. Government Should Bear Considerable Responsibility for the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
China’s state media Global Times published a commentary article stating that the U.S. should bear the responsibility for the Russia-Ukraine war. Below are the major points in the article:
“The Ukraine crisis has been going on for more than two months. According to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. has pledged about $3.7 billion in security aid to Ukraine since February 24. A growing number of international sources point out that the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is largely the result of the arrogance and successive mistakes of the US-led Western bloc over the past 30 years. The U.S. government should bear considerable responsibility. The current actions of the United States will not help end the crisis, but will continue to play up confrontation.”
“The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is, in a sense, a proxy war waged by the United States in Europe. However, the cost of the war is mainly borne by European countries.”
“The U.S. divides the world into different camps according to its own standards, which itself violates the spirit of democracy and will only bring more chaos to the world and more disasters to the people of all countries.”
“International public opinion generally believes that the Biden administration has continuously promoted ‘returning to multilateralism’ since taking office, but in fact, it is using ideological boundaries to form factions and force the selection of sides to divide the world. The United States continues to strengthen small circles and small groups such as the ‘Quadrilateral Mechanism,’ the ‘Five Eyes Alliance’ and the ‘G7.’ The fundamental purpose is to maintain the hegemony of the United States.“
“The Ukrainian crisis is yet another example of America’s push for hegemony. One of the root causes of this war is America’s opposition to European countries developing closer economic ties with Russia.”
“Analysts pointed out that the Ukrainian crisis reflects the unilateral definition of a ‘rules-based international order’ by the United States for a long time based on its own standards. Its essence is to maintain the rule order of the HEGEMONIC power of the United States.”
Source: Global Times, May 12, 2022
https://world.huanqiu.com/article/47yThzp10yU
Global Times: “Expel Russia” Is a False Proposition
China’s state-run media Global Times published an opinion article expressing concern over the U.S. attempt to expel Russia from international communities. The following is a translation of the article:
After the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the United States and the West imposed multiple sanctions on Russia and attempted to isolate Russia internationally. The latest move is that the United States and other Western countries called on most of the G20 members to work together to remove Russia from the organization.
The United States is attempting to undermine international law and the multilateral order through the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This is a trend that deserves the international community’s high vigilance … In fact, this pan-politicized operation by the U.S. has neither a solid legal basis nor wide support from the international community.
First, from the perspective of international law, it is difficult to find a legal basis for expelling Russia. Membership in an international organization is not determined by one or two countries, but by the constitution of the international organization. If the articles of an association have relevant provisions, the procedures shall be performed in accordance with the provisions of the articles. In general, international organizations do not have the right to directly expel or suspend membership if the constitution does not provide for it.
As the main forum for international economic cooperation, the G20 needs to follow the principle of consensus. Trying to deprive a member of its membership is bound to undermine the unity of the G20 and impact global economic governance, which is not in the interest of any party.
Second, international mainstream voices do not actually support the expulsion of Russia. Although the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to suspend Russia’s membership in the Human Rights Council, after the vote, Serbian President Vucic said that Serbia voting in support of the resolution was out of fear of the threat of sanctions if Serbia voted no. This fully shows that under the coercion and inducement of the U.S. and the West, a large part of the true voice of the international community has been silenced in the hustle and bustle of the U.S. and the West. So to what extent can such voting results reflect the mainstream understanding of the international community? Moreover, many G20 member countries such as China and Indonesia have expressed their opposition to the remarks about boycotting Russia in the G20. The Brazilian foreign minister severely criticized the way Western countries handled the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and opposed the expulsion of Russia from the G20. Even in the World Tourism Organization, many member states disapprove of suspending Russia’s membership. Under the discourse hegemony and selective reporting of the United States and the West, the voice of expelling Russia seems to be very loud, but in fact most countries are the “silent majority.”
Third, international organizations do not want to expel Russia. In the context of the prolonged epidemic and intensified conflicts, what international organizations need more is solidarity and cooperation to overcome difficulties, rather than widening the gap and deepening the estrangement. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that few international organizations openly support the expulsion of Russia.
In a word, to a large extent, “expelling Russia” in the international system is actually just a false proposition that American and Western politicians have made. The reality is that economic globalization has made the international community highly interconnected. This move by the U.S. side will not only tear apart the international system, but will not help resolve the current Ukraine crisis; nor is it in line with the general trend of the era of globalization. In the end, the era when one country or several countries have the final say has passed. The U.S. and the West should carefully reflect on what rights they have and what qualifications they have to issue orders to other countries.
Source: Global Times, April 25, 2022
https://opinion.huanqiu.com/article/47k9g3kLjhr
Luo Siyi: Lessons from the Ukraine War: Counting on U.S.’ ‘Kindness’ Is Pointless
Luo Siyi, a Senior Researcher at the Chongyang Financial Research Institute, Renmin University of China, published an article on Guancha.cn (the Observer) discussing the intentions of the U.S. in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war. Some excerpts from the article follow:
“For more than 20 years, the foreign military expansion of the United States has been obvious. Even so, the occurrence of the Ukraine war also represents a qualitative change in U.S. military policy. Before the Ukraine war, the United States had only taken military action against developing countries that were far weaker in military power and did not possess nuclear weapons.”
“However, the U.S. threat to bring Ukraine into NATO, triggering a war in Ukraine, shows that U.S. military policy is not limited to attacking developing countries that are far weaker than itself. Although the United States knew in advance that its eastward expansion of NATO into Ukraine would affect Russia’s most important interests (a move that clearly crossed Russia’s red line when Russia’s extremely powerful military and nuclear capabilities are on par with the United States), it was still prepared to take the risk.”
The U.S. is combining its basic political stance (the U.S. insists that Ukraine ‘has the right’ to join NATO) along with the military facts (the U.S. provides arms to Ukraine). It clearly shows that the U.S. has deliberately provoked a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, even though this will inevitably lead to the United States and Russia being in a direct conflict. Therefore, when assessing the Ukraine crisis, it should be noted that the U.S. escalated its military threats from targeting developing countries. Such threats are unjust but without the direct risk of triggering a world war — to targeting a powerful country like Russia, which may lead to a global military conflict.”
”The United States is fully aware that the one-China policy involves China’s most important national interests and is the foundation of U.S.-China relations. To abandon the one-China policy is to cross China’s red line, which is more dangerous than trying to incorporate Ukraine into NATO. So it is clear that the U.S. is trying to undermine the one-China policy in a provocative way, just as it deliberately decided to cross Russia’s red line on Ukraine.
“On the question of whether the U.S. provocation against China and Russia is temporary or long-term and permanent, the clear conclusion of this article is that the U.S. military escalation trend will continue.”
Source: Guancha.cn, April 22, 2022
https://www.guancha.cn/LuoSiYi/2022_04_22_636204.shtml
Jin Canrong: China Should Increase its Military Spending to Two Percent of GDP
In discussing the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Jin Canrong, a professor on American issues at the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China, made a statement in an interview with the Guancha (Observer). He advised that China should quickly increase its military spending to 2 percent of GDP in preparation for a potential war with Taiwan over its independence and with the American right wing forces.
Jin said, “From a technical point of view, the Ukraine issue can indeed be seen as a rehearsal for the Taiwan Strait crisis. This is a good learning opportunity. China can learn a lot from it, such as how to fight militarily, what pressures may be encountered politically, how to resolve these pressures, and more.
“For this conflict, different parties have learned experiences from different aspects. For example, for Taiwan, I believe this is a shock to the Taiwan authorities, but judging from their current position, it seems that they have not interpreted it in the right direction. For example, they say that Taiwan’s military strength is stronger than Ukraine’s. They also keep comforting themselves that, ‘for the United States, Taiwan’s strategic value is greater than Ukraine’s.’ This perception is dangerous.
“There is still a danger that some ‘Taiwan independence proponents, along with the U.S. right wing forces, will take the initiative to provoke a Taiwan Strait crisis because they also know that, from the perspective of development, time is advantageous to the mainland. They may not want to follow the rhythm of the mainland anymore. Believing that the mainland is not ready yet, they will make trouble ahead of time. This places higher requirements on our work. We must strengthen military preparations so that we can smash their plans at any time.
“In addition, I agree with a proposal by Lao Hu (Hu Xijin, former chief editor of Global Times), who although our military expenditure has increased 7.1 percent over last year, it is still low in general. It is less than 2 percent of GDP. Considering that the danger (of war) is increasing, it is very necessary to raise our military spending to 2 percent of GDP. We cannot underestimate the risk of the “Taiwan independence” forces and the American right-wing extremists.”
Source: Guancha.cn, April 2, 2022
https://www.guancha.cn/JinCanRong/2022_04_02_632942_s.shtml