International mission: Dr Wee with Prof Wong (second from right) and Land Transport Division officers after arriving in New York City. — Pic taken from Dr Wee’s Facebook page
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2022/07/02/drive-to-make-m-cycle-rides-safer
Suriname, Road Safety, United States/Climate & other topics - Daily Press Briefing (30 June 2022)
These lifestyle changes will definitely not be easy but they could help stretch the ringgit and leave some extra cash in the wallet in these tough times.
Be ready to fork out more to eat out
Many eat at home to beat rising prices
Related stories:
Boosting federal-state coordination to tackle food security
M40 families caught in the middle
Gushing sales of cooking oil before subsidy ends
Europe will certainly not become more secure after this round of NATO expansion
There is a lack of mutual understanding and compromise in European culture, where countries are focused on maximizing their own security interests without regard for others. The US is certainly glad to see Europe in this state.
Editor's Note:
NATO, which is constantly looking for imaginary enemies and justifying its existence by inciting confrontation, is holding a summit from Tuesday to Thursday, and it also plans to extend its tentacles to the Asia-Pacific region. Behind its aggressive narrative, contradictions and divisions within NATO have become increasingly prominent. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is not going according to NATO's playbook. This series of articles will provide some clues regarding NATO's predicament. This is the fifth piece. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was established in 1949, but to this day it remains an important tool for suppressing the opponents of the West. The initiative to unite 12 countries originally belonged to the United States, which became the most powerful world leader after the end of World War II. The US was the foundation of the organization's military power, a source of economic and financial assistance to member countries. It goes without saying that not only the highest command posts belonged to the Americans, but they also defined strategic objectives at all stages of NATO's activities. The main mission of this organization from the very beginning was the unification of military and economic resources under the command of the US to prepare an all-out war against the Soviet Union. The countries of another military bloc, the Warsaw Pact Organization (ATS), led by the USSR, also became enemies. It was created only six years after NATO - in 1955. NATO played an important role in weakening the USSR and its allies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, the question arose about the feasibility of continuing the existence of NATO. But the US, which really ruled the bloc, set a new task for it - to involve former ATS member countries and post-Soviet republics in its structure. This was considered necessary to expand the zone of America's strict control over Europe as the most important part of the world at that time. NATO was also used to "sweep" the European space during the war against Yugoslavia. NATO and its de facto twin in the field of economics and politics - the European Union - were used in organizing the "color revolution" in Kiev and provoking the current Ukrainian crisis. In these situations, the US uses NATO as a tool for dirty work, saving the US from the loss of "precious American lives" and the risk of retaliatory strikes on the territory of the US. NATO's successful fulfillment of its tasks in Europe led Washington to think about using the potential and experience of the bloc in another part of the world. Having recently identified China as the most serious threat to the international order, Washington is faced with a lack of resources to contain and suppress the growing Chinese power. In order to mobilize the existing resources, the Biden administration has developed a concept of Indo-Pacific security, strongly resembling a similar concept for the North Atlantic. The concept has already been reinforced by the creation of the Indo-Pacific Command of the US Armed Forces. Already available resources were activated - military alliances with Japan, South Korea and Australia. The AUKUS military group was created. The activity of the QUAD military-diplomatic group is stimulated. The creation of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework was recently announced. But even these actions are not enough for Washington. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to extend the scope of NATO's responsibility to the Indo-Pacific region as well. Obviously, US efforts are aimed at uniting all Asian and European allies, their military, economic and geostrategic resources to create a new tool for the realization of American global ambitions. It can be conditionally called the Indo-Pacific Treaty Organization according to the patterns of NATO. Of course, the arrival of NATO to the East, especially since the new military bloc of the West, will threaten the security interests of Russia as a Pacific power. But first of all, it will be directed against China. Strengthening the militarization of the region will also contradict the interests of economic stability and security of ASEAN, APEC and other groupings of the region. Serious obstacles may arise in the way of implementing Biden's chess game. We are not talking about the fluctuations of European satellites in NATO such as "ready for anything" Poland, the "Baltic troika" or the Balkan neoplasms. It is unlikely that we will talk about England with its age-old anti-Chinese traditions and loyalty to Washington at the level of a conditioned reflex. But such large "stakeholders" as Germany, France, Spain and Italy may think hard about the consequences of entering into a military confrontation with China, taking into account their trade and economic interests. These powers are well aware of the benefits of bilateral trade with China, which amount to tens and hundreds of billions of euros. They are also aware of the intention of the White House to lift trade sanctions against China in an attempt to bring down the threatening increase in inflation. The role of trade and economic "cannon fodder" is unlikely to entice figures claiming some level of independence even within the framework of NATO. In Madrid, the leaders of significant European powers are unlikely to voice their doubts, but then they will try to "put on the brakes" in implementation of Biden's Indo-Pacific plan. Another important reason for avoiding the dubious honor of becoming a member of the anti-Chinese coalition may be Washington's inconsistency. Just two years ago, then US president Donald Trump reproached NATO member countries for the insufficiency of military efforts, the desire to "ride for free" and even promised to dissolve the military bloc. What will happen after the next presidential election? Will Trump come back? Won't those business and political circles that oppose the dispersion of the waning power of their power, for the concentration of resources on solving domestic economic and humanitarian problems, win? Europeans are already suffering losses from following Biden's anti-China course. The ratification of the China-Europe Comprehensive Investment Agreement has been disrupted. Taking into account the hostile policy of Poland and the Baltic countries, Chinese logistics companies are reviewing the routes of goods delivery to Europe via the Silk Road. Beijing is studying the experience of "crippling sanctions" against Russia. After all, Washington has threatened to impose similar sanctions not only in case of the aggravation of the situation around the Taiwan island, but even if China refuses to participate in sanctions against Russia. The US' convulsive attempts to return itself to the role of world hegemon are unlikely to succeed. But they can cause considerable harm to mutually beneficial relations between countries, which will be difficult to compensate quickly.The author is head of the "Russian Dream-Chinese Dream" analytic center of the Izborsk Club. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
The sewage of the Cold War cannot be allowed to flow into the Pacific Ocean.
On the heel of the G7 summit, NATO leaders are scheduled to convene in Spain from Tuesday to Thursday for their annual summit with the main focus on Russia and toughening up its stance toward China, while analysts said including China in the US-led military bloc's new strategic concept cannot help alleviate US divergences with the EU, especially on China, and severe domestic problems will also weaken Washington's ambitious plan to maintain hegemony.
NATO is increasingly trapped in a predicament that it may feel difficult to escape.
Related posts:
G7 summit: Is western influence waning in a multipolar world?
Top shots: Leaders of the G7 at the gathering in southern Germany. Biden and other leaders relaunched the newly renamed “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment” at the annual event. — AFP
G7 summit is more like a Western mobilization meeting for US diplomatic strategy
After US president Joe Biden and leaders from other Group of Seven (G7) nations proposed to raise $600 billion in the next five years to finance infrastructure projects in developing countries, a move generally interpreted by observers as intending to counter China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), economists expressed skepticism over the feasibility of such a program, citing reasons such as the US' strained government debt status, poor infrastructure construction abilities and past failure with a similar project. They also criticized the G7 proposal for having an "insincere" intention, as it was raised more from the perspective of launching a political competition with China, instead of really caring about the infrastructure situations in lower income countries. In this sense, it is unlikely to yield any project that could compare with China's flagship BRI projects, which focus on mutual connectivity, win-win, not decoupling and exclusionism. Government leaders from Group of Seven nations made a pledge on Sunday at their annual gathering to raise $600 billion in private and public funds over the next five years to finance infrastructure in developing countries, in a project called the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), a Reuters report noted on Monday. US president Joe Biden said that the US aims to mobilize $200 billion for the PGII project over the period through grants, federal funds and private investment to support projects that help tackle climate change, improve global health, digital infrastructure and gender equity. He highlighted several flagship projects, including a $2 billion solar development project in Angola, the report noted. Europe will mobilize 300 billion euros for the initiative, Reuters said. On the sidelines of the G7 Leaders' Summit in Germany, Biden said that the PGII is not aid or charity, but will "deliver returns for everyone", including the American people, according to a report by npr.org on Sunday. The G7 nations launched the PGII project only about one year after a very similar scheme was unveiled at the G7 conference last July. The scheme, named Build Back Better World, commonly known as B3W, is considered by many media outlets as a predecessor to the PGII. UK newspaper The Guardian, for example, used the word "relaunch" to imply that PGII is just a disguised version of B3W. Insincere intention Although the US government didn't explicitly mention the relationship between PGII and the China-proposed BRI program, many media outlets including Reuters as well as economists mentioned that the real intention of PGII is to counter China's BRI which has delivered many concrete projects since it was proposed in 2013. Hu Qimu, chief research fellow at the Beijing-based Sinosteel Economic Research Institute, said that China's global infrastructure cooperation has continued to yield results in recent years, standing in sharp contrast to some Western governments' "dereliction of duty" in this area. "The PGII is like a shouted slogan to ring-fence China's strategies, a kind of tactic to create an atmosphere of cracking down on China," Hu said, adding that it could also be a method used by Biden to pander to voters ahead of the US mid-term elections. Another international relations expert who requested anonymity also said that the US, which has no tradition of helping other countries in the field of infrastructure, would not suddenly change and take to the idea. "The real intent is to counter China's projects and compete with China," the person said. Observers found that the PGII's two pillars of clean energy and information/communications technology are particularly hostile to China, as the West has been smearing China over issues related to the solar power industry in Xinjiang and China's 5G technology, using security concerns as an excuse. Commenting on this policy direction, experts criticized the US-led program for lacking the sincerity of really caring about the infrastructure situations in developing countries, saying instead that it had a very "impure" objective. "If the G7 group only targets China's overseas infrastructure market for competition, history will prove that this kind of top-level planning that lacks the concept of common development will only become another short-lived project," Wang Jianjiao, director of the economic and trade cooperation department under the Silk Road Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Monday. Wang also noted that only when the US gives up its global cooperation model, which often attaches "unequal additional conditions", gets rid of its own debt predicament and reinvigorates the US' real economy will it have a chance of competing with China in overseas infrastructure markets. Unfeasible project Economists also noted that the PGII and its promised funding volume by the US government is never likely to become reality, considering the US' internal economic problems and unstable political situation. Qiu Wenxu, director of the industry development department under the Silk Road Academy of Social Sciences, said that if the US government really intends to materialize the $200 billion funding, it is unlikely to come mostly from private capital, as infrastructure projects have long investment cycles and relatively low yield rates, making them unattractive to private investors. "However, at the current time when the US' government debt is at a critically high level and it has hardly any budget to invest in foreign-bound infrastructure, Biden still needs to raise most of the money from private companies. In this sense, it's very likely that the $200 billion fund can't be raised to the full number," Qiu told the Global Times on Monday. He further stressed that the US does not have advantages in infrastructure construction, pointing out that it has hardly completed any large infrastructure projects in its own country in the past 10 years, not to mention abroad. For example, California's high-speed rail, a flagship US infrastructure project, is "tens of billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule," according to a report by kqed.org in May. Some experts also noted that the US' changing political situation is also casting uncertainties over implementation of the funding. "It would be even more difficult to convince the US Congress to invest overseas, if after the midterm elections the Democrats lose the majority of House of Representatives," Lü Xiang, an expert on US studies and research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times, on Monday. In fact, analysts have pointed out that the PGII funding would in fact add liability to Biden's already poor approval rating in the US, given the much weakened domestic economy due to galloping inflation, among other social issues. The difficulties in raising funds for such a project were already shown in the PGII's predecessor project B3W, which some media outlets and people regarded as a failure. An article by Foreign Affairs, for example, said that the B3W project has " languished", while a Guardian report noted that "little had been heard of" B3W since its launch. According to the Foreign Affairs article, the US' commitments to global infrastructure renewal only came to about $6 million under the B3W project in one year after its launch, which is "a far cry" from the billions Biden promised at the beginning. "Judging from the B3W implementation, it has high probability that the PGII will be another empty promise," Qiu said. BRI success to continue Economists also said that even with competition and certain countries' attempts to smear the BRI, the benefits and achievements of BRI is obvious to all, and that BRI investment will likely continue to surge in the future regardless of the volatile global political situation. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian said on Monday that China welcomes any initiative to promote global construction of infrastructure. "We believe that one initiative is not meant to replace another. However, we oppose the act of using the name of infrastructure to promote geopolitical schemes," he said. Liang Haiming, dean of the Belt and Road Institute at Hainan University, also told the Global Times that even if Western countries loan money to developing countries to build infrastructure projects, China might benefit from such a program, as many countries would purchase China's construction materials as they are known for being cost effective. Qiu also said that China's BRI has become one of the largest international cooperation platforms in past years, as the country does not view infrastructure construction projects as the ultimate purpose, but aims to help countries consolidate economic development foundations by improving their infrastructure construction.
In the first five months, China's non-financial foreign direct investment in countries along the BRI route rose 10.2 percent to about $8.2 billion, data from the Ministry of Commerce showed.
A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry on Monday refuted G7 officials’ claims of “debt trap” created by the ...
EC President von der Leyen roasted for anti-China agenda in new infrastructure funding initiative
Related posts:
U.S.-backed smear campaign created 'debt trap' narrative to defame BRI
G7 summit: Is western influence waning in a multipolar world?
Top shots: Leaders of the G7 at the gathering in southern Germany. Biden and other leaders relaunched the newly renamed “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment” at the annual event. — AFP
G7 summit is more like a Western mobilization meeting for US diplomatic strategy
After US president Joe Biden and leaders from other Group of Seven (G7) nations proposed to raise $600 billion in the next five years to finance infrastructure projects in developing countries, a move generally interpreted by observers as intending to counter China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), economists expressed skepticism over the feasibility of such a program, citing reasons such as the US' strained government debt status, poor infrastructure construction abilities and past failure with a similar project. They also criticized the G7 proposal for having an "insincere" intention, as it was raised more from the perspective of launching a political competition with China, instead of really caring about the infrastructure situations in lower income countries. In this sense, it is unlikely to yield any project that could compare with China's flagship BRI projects, which focus on mutual connectivity, win-win, not decoupling and exclusionism. Government leaders from Group of Seven nations made a pledge on Sunday at their annual gathering to raise $600 billion in private and public funds over the next five years to finance infrastructure in developing countries, in a project called the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), a Reuters report noted on Monday. US president Joe Biden said that the US aims to mobilize $200 billion for the PGII project over the period through grants, federal funds and private investment to support projects that help tackle climate change, improve global health, digital infrastructure and gender equity. He highlighted several flagship projects, including a $2 billion solar development project in Angola, the report noted. Europe will mobilize 300 billion euros for the initiative, Reuters said. On the sidelines of the G7 Leaders' Summit in Germany, Biden said that the PGII is not aid or charity, but will "deliver returns for everyone", including the American people, according to a report by npr.org on Sunday. The G7 nations launched the PGII project only about one year after a very similar scheme was unveiled at the G7 conference last July. The scheme, named Build Back Better World, commonly known as B3W, is considered by many media outlets as a predecessor to the PGII. UK newspaper The Guardian, for example, used the word "relaunch" to imply that PGII is just a disguised version of B3W. Insincere intention Although the US government didn't explicitly mention the relationship between PGII and the China-proposed BRI program, many media outlets including Reuters as well as economists mentioned that the real intention of PGII is to counter China's BRI which has delivered many concrete projects since it was proposed in 2013. Hu Qimu, chief research fellow at the Beijing-based Sinosteel Economic Research Institute, said that China's global infrastructure cooperation has continued to yield results in recent years, standing in sharp contrast to some Western governments' "dereliction of duty" in this area. "The PGII is like a shouted slogan to ring-fence China's strategies, a kind of tactic to create an atmosphere of cracking down on China," Hu said, adding that it could also be a method used by Biden to pander to voters ahead of the US mid-term elections. Another international relations expert who requested anonymity also said that the US, which has no tradition of helping other countries in the field of infrastructure, would not suddenly change and take to the idea. "The real intent is to counter China's projects and compete with China," the person said. Observers found that the PGII's two pillars of clean energy and information/communications technology are particularly hostile to China, as the West has been smearing China over issues related to the solar power industry in Xinjiang and China's 5G technology, using security concerns as an excuse. Commenting on this policy direction, experts criticized the US-led program for lacking the sincerity of really caring about the infrastructure situations in developing countries, saying instead that it had a very "impure" objective. "If the G7 group only targets China's overseas infrastructure market for competition, history will prove that this kind of top-level planning that lacks the concept of common development will only become another short-lived project," Wang Jianjiao, director of the economic and trade cooperation department under the Silk Road Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Monday. Wang also noted that only when the US gives up its global cooperation model, which often attaches "unequal additional conditions", gets rid of its own debt predicament and reinvigorates the US' real economy will it have a chance of competing with China in overseas infrastructure markets. Unfeasible project Economists also noted that the PGII and its promised funding volume by the US government is never likely to become reality, considering the US' internal economic problems and unstable political situation. Qiu Wenxu, director of the industry development department under the Silk Road Academy of Social Sciences, said that if the US government really intends to materialize the $200 billion funding, it is unlikely to come mostly from private capital, as infrastructure projects have long investment cycles and relatively low yield rates, making them unattractive to private investors. "However, at the current time when the US' government debt is at a critically high level and it has hardly any budget to invest in foreign-bound infrastructure, Biden still needs to raise most of the money from private companies. In this sense, it's very likely that the $200 billion fund can't be raised to the full number," Qiu told the Global Times on Monday. He further stressed that the US does not have advantages in infrastructure construction, pointing out that it has hardly completed any large infrastructure projects in its own country in the past 10 years, not to mention abroad. For example, California's high-speed rail, a flagship US infrastructure project, is "tens of billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule," according to a report by kqed.org in May. Some experts also noted that the US' changing political situation is also casting uncertainties over implementation of the funding. "It would be even more difficult to convince the US Congress to invest overseas, if after the midterm elections the Democrats lose the majority of House of Representatives," Lü Xiang, an expert on US studies and research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times, on Monday. In fact, analysts have pointed out that the PGII funding would in fact add liability to Biden's already poor approval rating in the US, given the much weakened domestic economy due to galloping inflation, among other social issues. The difficulties in raising funds for such a project were already shown in the PGII's predecessor project B3W, which some media outlets and people regarded as a failure. An article by Foreign Affairs, for example, said that the B3W project has " languished", while a Guardian report noted that "little had been heard of" B3W since its launch. According to the Foreign Affairs article, the US' commitments to global infrastructure renewal only came to about $6 million under the B3W project in one year after its launch, which is "a far cry" from the billions Biden promised at the beginning. "Judging from the B3W implementation, it has high probability that the PGII will be another empty promise," Qiu said. BRI success to continue Economists also said that even with competition and certain countries' attempts to smear the BRI, the benefits and achievements of BRI is obvious to all, and that BRI investment will likely continue to surge in the future regardless of the volatile global political situation. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian said on Monday that China welcomes any initiative to promote global construction of infrastructure. "We believe that one initiative is not meant to replace another. However, we oppose the act of using the name of infrastructure to promote geopolitical schemes," he said. Liang Haiming, dean of the Belt and Road Institute at Hainan University, also told the Global Times that even if Western countries loan money to developing countries to build infrastructure projects, China might benefit from such a program, as many countries would purchase China's construction materials as they are known for being cost effective. Qiu also said that China's BRI has become one of the largest international cooperation platforms in past years, as the country does not view infrastructure construction projects as the ultimate purpose, but aims to help countries consolidate economic development foundations by improving their infrastructure construction.
In the first five months, China's non-financial foreign direct investment in countries along the BRI route rose 10.2 percent to about $8.2 billion, data from the Ministry of Commerce showed.
Related posts:
