Share This

Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 7, 2025

China Has Quietly Won the Trade War—and Now Leads the World



Donald Trump-the noisy duck


China Has Quietly Won the Trade War—and Now Leads the World
Ricardo Martins 
    “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
    —Vladimir Lenin

A Silent but Seismic Turning Point
In a silent but seismic shift, President Xi Jinping has ended five centuries of Western global dominance—not with bombs or blockades, but with strategic patience and unyielding confidence. Without firing a single shot, China has emerged not only as the victor of Trump’s chaotic trade war but also as the world’s new de facto leader.

This transformation did not happen overnight, but the past few years have accelerated an inevitable rebalancing, especially after Trump’s first administration. The West, and particularly the United States, once sat atop a unipolar world [06/05, 11:08 am] Kung Kok Chye letan kkc: China Has Quietly Won the Trade War—and Now Leads the World
Ricardo Martins 
    “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
    —Vladimir Lenin

A Silent but Seismic Turning Point
In a silent but seismic shift, President Xi Jinping has ended five centuries of Western global dominance—not with bombs or blockades, but with strategic patience and unyielding confidence. Without firing a single shot, China has emerged not only as the victor of Trump’s chaotic trade war but also as the world’s new de facto leader.

This transformation did not happen overnight, but the past few years have accelerated an inevitable rebalancing, especially after Trump’s first administration. The West, and particularly the United States, once sat atop a unipolar world order. Today, that dominance has not [06/05, 11:08 am] Kung Kok Chye letan kkc: China Has Quietly Won the Trade War—and Now Leads the World
Ricardo Martins 
    “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
    —Vladimir Lenin

A Silent but Seismic Turning Point
In a silent but seismic shift, President Xi Jinping has ended five centuries of Western global dominance—not with bombs or blockades, but with strategic patience and unyielding confidence. Without firing a single shot, China has emerged not only as the victor of Trump’s chaotic trade war but also as the world’s new de facto leader.

This transformation did not happen overnight, but the past few years have accelerated an inevitable rebalancing, especially after Trump’s first administration. The West, and particularly the United States, once sat atop a unipolar world order. Today, that dominance has not just eroded—it has been decisively challenged.

The Biden administration, like Trump’s before it, ultimately came to terms with a critical truth: global decoupling from China is economically untenable. The U.S. Treasury now openly acknowledges that tariffs are unsustainable, signaling what amounts to a strategic surrender in a trade war that began with bravado but ended in backpedaling.

The Cost of Financial Hubris

America’s attempt to sever its economic entanglement with China unraveled under the weight of its own financialization. Tariffs imposed during the Trump years wiped out trillions in global capital, not by transferring wealth to Beijing but by annihilating it. Markets froze, supply chains fractured, and America’s inflationary spiral deepened as Chinese imports became pricier and scarcer. Grocery chains and tech firms sounded the alarm: shelves were going empty, and production lines were halting. A $1 trillion trade dependency can’t simply be wished away.

China, by contrast, played the long game. It neither retaliated rashly nor blinked. It held five powerful economic levers in reserve: U.S. Treasury holdings, currency manipulation, control over rare earth elements, asymmetric trade dependencies, and vast cross-border investments. Each of these tools remains in Beijing’s back pocket—unleashed only when necessary. That quiet strength was Xi’s real strategy: win without war.

A Battle of Ego vs. Shred Future

In truth, this wasn’t merely a contest of policies—it was a duel between two men: Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. One ruled by consensus and long-term vision; the other by tweetstorms and impulsive tariffs. While Trump chased headlines and short-term victories, Xi pursued civilizational restoration. His goal was not just to withstand American pressure, but to lead a new era of global governance rooted in sovereignty, economic connectivity, and multipolar cooperation.

Xi Jinping’s vision for the world is a shared future for mankind: a multipolar global order based on mutual respect, non-interference, economic cooperation, and sovereign development, which, to some extent, revives the spirit of Bandung and the aspirations of the Global South. It emphasizes connectivity through initiatives like the Belt and Road, stability over confrontation, and a shift from Western-dominated liberalism, where rules and norms are dictated by the market and leaders follow the market’s ruling, to a more inclusive, pragmatic global governance model rooted in civilizational respect.

The results are stark: The U.S. Navy is aging, and its shipbuilding capacity is stagnant. Military overstretch has weakened alliances, with even Europe questioning the future of NATO. Meanwhile, China builds ports, railways, and satellites. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road and critical mineral diplomacy, Beijing now anchors vast swaths of Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia into its sphere of influence, not by force, but by finance and infrastructure.

A Different Kind of Leadership

The question no longer is whether China will lead the world—it already is. The question is how it will share that leadership. Xi’s vision, contrary to Western paranoia, is not zero-sum. As Zhou Bo, senior fellow at Tsinghua University, eloquently put it in his recent book Should the World Fear China?, “The world is becoming less Western, and it’s about time the West learned to listen.”

What the West perceives as fear, the Global South sees as opportunity. In Africa, Chinese workers build roads and hospitals; in Latin America, Chinese investments fuel clean energy and education. Even amid complex territorial tensions, China has maintained a foreign policy grounded in non-interference and regional diplomacy. When was the last time China toppled a government or bombed a nation into regime change?

Toward a Shared but Multipolar Future

To those who say China seeks to upend the international order, the response is simple: What is the order worth if it only serves the few? China doesn’t reject rules—it seeks fairness in their making. The Belt and Road isn’t a trap, as some Western media narratives suggest; it’s a lifeline for nations long ignored by Washington and Brussels. Even the narrative of Chinese “militarism” collapses under scrutiny: China hasn’t engaged in foreign combat since 1979, while U.S. interventions stretch across every continent.

This doesn’t mean China is perfect—no nation is. But it does mean the West must move from denial to adaptation. The future will not be American or European-dominated. It will be co-governed, with China holding a preponderant role. The West must recalibrate, not in fear, but in mutual respect.

In the words of Zhou Bo: “You cannot be the world’s strongest power and still claim victimhood.” The same could be said of the U.S.—it must accept that others have risen, and that humility, not hegemony, will define the 21st century.

From Pax Americana to Pax Sinica?

We are indeed entering a new era—not marked by the collapse of the West, but by its maturation. Learning from China doesn’t mean becoming China. It means recognizing that leadership today is measured not just in aircraft carriers or GDP, but in resilience, diplomacy, and the ability to build.

The West ruled the world for 500 years. It is now time to share the stage with a resurgent power, one that has reclaimed its rightful place and carries within it the wisdom of a 5,000-year-old civilization.
[06/05, 11:28 am] Kung Kok Chye letan kkc: China has repeatedly said she is for peace... 
Mind boggling when those western numbskulls just
can't comprehend... then again, what can you expect from murderous
warmongers who just wanted to rob, loot, steal tons of monies, gold and other resources from the the spoils of wars.
Just look at some very recent history. eroded—it has been decisively challenged.

The Biden administration, like Trump’s before it, ultimately came to terms with a critical truth: global decoupling from China is economically untenable. The U.S. Treasury now openly acknowledges that tariffs are unsustainable, signaling what amounts to a strategic surrender in a trade war that began with bravado but ended in backpedaling.

The Cost of Financial Hubris

America’s attempt to sever its economic entanglement with China unraveled under the weight of its own financialization. Tariffs imposed during the Trump years wiped out trillions in global capital, not by transferring wealth to Beijing but by annihilating it. Markets froze, supply chains fractured, and America’s inflationary spiral deepened as Chinese imports became pricier and scarcer. Grocery chains and tech firms sounded the alarm: shelves were going empty, and production lines were halting. A $1 trillion trade dependency can’t simply be wished away.

China, by contrast, played the long game. It neither retaliated rashly nor blinked. It held five powerful economic levers in reserve: U.S. Treasury holdings, currency manipulation, control over rare earth elements, asymmetric trade dependencies, and vast cross-border investments. Each of these tools remains in Beijing’s back pocket—unleashed only when necessary. That quiet strength was Xi’s real strategy: win without war.

A Battle of Ego vs. Shred Future

In truth, this wasn’t merely a contest of policies—it was a duel between two men: Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. One ruled by consensus and long-term vision; the other by tweetstorms and impulsive tariffs. While Trump chased headlines and short-term victories, Xi pursued civilizational restoration. His goal was not just to withstand American pressure, but to lead a new era of global governance rooted in sovereignty, economic connectivity, and multipolar cooperation.

Xi Jinping’s vision for the world is a shared future for mankind: a multipolar global order based on mutual respect, non-interference, economic cooperation, and sovereign development, which, to some extent, revives the spirit of Bandung and the aspirations of the Global South. It emphasizes connectivity through initiatives like the Belt and Road, stability over confrontation, and a shift from Western-dominated liberalism, where rules and norms are dictated by the market and leaders follow the market’s ruling, to a more inclusive, pragmatic global governance model rooted in civilizational respect.

The results are stark: The U.S. Navy is aging, and its shipbuilding capacity is stagnant. Military overstretch has weakened alliances, with even Europe questioning the future of NATO. Meanwhile, China builds ports, railways, and satellites. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road and critical mineral diplomacy, Beijing now anchors vast swaths of Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia into its sphere of influence, not by force, but by finance and infrastructure.

A Different Kind of Leadership

The question no longer is whether China will lead the world—it already is. The question is how it will share that leadership. Xi’s vision, contrary to Western paranoia, is not zero-sum. As Zhou Bo, senior fellow at Tsinghua University, eloquently put it in his recent book Should the World Fear China?, “The world is becoming less Western, and it’s about time the West learned to listen.”

What the West perceives as fear, the Global South sees as opportunity. In Africa, Chinese workers build roads and hospitals; in Latin America, Chinese investments fuel clean energy and education. Even amid complex territorial tensions, China has maintained a foreign policy grounded in non-interference and regional diplomacy. When was the last time China toppled a government or bombed a nation into regime change?

Toward a Shared but Multipolar Future

To those who say China seeks to upend the international order, the response is simple: What is the order worth if it only serves the few? China doesn’t reject rules—it seeks fairness in their making. The Belt and Road isn’t a trap, as some Western media narratives suggest; it’s a lifeline for nations long ignored by Washington and Brussels. Even the narrative of Chinese “militarism” collapses under scrutiny: China hasn’t engaged in foreign combat since 1979, while U.S. interventions stretch across every continent.

This doesn’t mean China is perfect—no nation is. But it does mean the West must move from denial to adaptation. The future will not be American or European-dominated. It will be co-governed, with China holding a preponderant role. The West must recalibrate, not in fear, but in mutual respect.

In the words of Zhou Bo: “You cannot be the world’s strongest power and still claim victimhood.” The same could be said of the U.S.—it must accept that others have risen, and that humility, not hegemony, will define the 21st century.

From Pax Americana to Pax Sinica?

We are indeed entering a new era—not marked by the collapse of the West, but by its maturation. Learning from China doesn’t mean becoming China. It means recognizing that leadership today is measured not just in aircraft carriers or GDP, but in resilience, diplomacy, and the ability to build.

The West ruled the world for 500 years. It is now time to share the stage with a resurgent power, one that has reclaimed its rightful place and carries within it the wisdom of a 5,000-year-old civilization.
[06/05, 11:28 am] Kung Kok Chye letan kkc: China has repeatedly said she is for peace... 
Mind boggling when those western numbskulls just
can't comprehend... then again, what can you expect from murderous
warmongers who just wanted to rob, loot, steal tons of monies, gold and other resources from the the spoils of wars.
Just look at some very recent history.Today, that dominance has not just eroded—it has been decisively challenged.

The Biden administration, like Trump’s before it, ultimately came to terms with a critical truth: global decoupling from China is economically untenable. The U.S. Treasury now openly acknowledges that tariffs are unsustainable, signaling what amounts to a strategic surrender in a trade war that began with bravado but ended in backpedaling.

The Cost of Financial Hubris

America’s attempt to sever its economic entanglement with China unraveled under the weight of its own financialization. Tariffs imposed during the Trump years wiped out trillions in global capital, not by transferring wealth to Beijing but by annihilating it. Markets froze, supply chains fractured, and America’s inflationary spiral deepened as Chinese imports became pricier and scarcer. Grocery chains and tech firms sounded the alarm: shelves were going empty, and production lines were halting. A $1 trillion trade dependency can’t simply be wished away.

China, by contrast, played the long game. It neither retaliated rashly nor blinked. It held five powerful economic levers in reserve: U.S. Treasury holdings, currency manipulation, control over rare earth elements, asymmetric trade dependencies, and vast cross-border investments. Each of these tools remains in Beijing’s back pocket—unleashed only when necessary. That quiet strength was Xi’s real strategy: win without war.

A Battle of Ego vs. Shred Future

In truth, this wasn’t merely a contest of policies—it was a duel between two men: Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. One ruled by consensus and long-term vision; the other by tweetstorms and impulsive tariffs. While Trump chased headlines and short-term victories, Xi pursued civilizational restoration. His goal was not just to withstand American pressure, but to lead a new era of global governance rooted in sovereignty, economic connectivity, and multipolar cooperation.

Xi Jinping’s vision for the world is a shared future for mankind: a multipolar global order based on mutual respect, non-interference, economic cooperation, and sovereign development, which, to some extent, revives the spirit of Bandung and the aspirations of the Global South. It emphasizes connectivity through initiatives like the Belt and Road, stability over confrontation, and a shift from Western-dominated liberalism, where rules and norms are dictated by the market and leaders follow the market’s ruling, to a more inclusive, pragmatic global governance model rooted in civilizational respect.

The results are stark: The U.S. Navy is aging, and its shipbuilding capacity is stagnant. Military overstretch has weakened alliances, with even Europe questioning the future of NATO. Meanwhile, China builds ports, railways, and satellites. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road and critical mineral diplomacy, Beijing now anchors vast swaths of Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia into its sphere of influence, not by force, but by finance and infrastructure.

A Different Kind of Leadership

The question no longer is whether China will lead the world—it already is. The question is how it will share that leadership. Xi’s vision, contrary to Western paranoia, is not zero-sum. As Zhou Bo, senior fellow at Tsinghua University, eloquently put it in his recent book Should the World Fear China?, “The world is becoming less Western, and it’s about time the West learned to listen.”

What the West perceives as fear, the Global South sees as opportunity. In Africa, Chinese workers build roads and hospitals; in Latin America, Chinese investments fuel clean energy and education. Even amid complex territorial tensions, China has maintained a foreign policy grounded in non-interference and regional diplomacy. When was the last time China toppled a government or bombed a nation into regime change?

Toward a Shared but Multipolar Future

To those who say China seeks to upend the international order, the response is simple: What is the order worth if it only serves the few? China doesn’t reject rules—it seeks fairness in their making. The Belt and Road isn’t a trap, as some Western media narratives suggest; it’s a lifeline for nations long ignored by Washington and Brussels. Even the narrative of Chinese “militarism” collapses under scrutiny: China hasn’t engaged in foreign combat since 1979, while U.S. interventions stretch across every continent.

This doesn’t mean China is perfect—no nation is. But it does mean the West must move from denial to adaptation. The future will not be American or European-dominated. It will be co-governed, with China holding a preponderant role. The West must recalibrate, not in fear, but in mutual respect.

In the words of Zhou Bo: “You cannot be the world’s strongest power and still claim victimhood.” The same could be said of the U.S.—it must accept that others have risen, and that humility, not hegemony, will define the 21st century.

From Pax Americana to Pax Sinica?

We are indeed entering a new era—not marked by the collapse of the West, but by its maturation. Learning from China doesn’t mean becoming China. It means recognizing that leadership today is measured not just in aircraft carriers or GDP, but in resilience, diplomacy, and the ability to build.

The West ruled the world for 500 years. It is now time to share the stage with a resurgent power, one that has reclaimed its rightful place and carries within it the wisdom of a 5,000-year-old civilization.
[06/05, 11:28 am] Kung Kok Chye letan kkc: China has repeatedly said she is for peace... 
Mind boggling when those western numbskulls just
can't comprehend... then again, what can you expect from murderous
warmongers who just wanted to rob, loot, steal tons of monies, gold and other resources from the the spoils of wars.
Just look at some very recent history.- shared from friends


Monday, May 5, 2025

rain drain in the USA, ‘America First,’ science on the sidelines?

Trump cutbacks force scientists to increasingly seek jobs in Europe

Student workers of Columbia union members protest Columbia University's recent policy changes and call for protection of international students, restoration of funding, and academic freedom at Columbia University in New York City, US, on March 24, 2025. Photo: IC

David Die Dejean is passionate about studying tuna. Last year, he landed a dream job at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Miami to pursue his research.

By January, he was settled in, had received a good review and loved working with his colleagues, he said.

Then in mid-february he received an email to vacate the premises within 90 minutes. He and hundreds others had been dismissed in job cuts targeting probationary workers as US President Donald Trump’s new administration began slashing funding for universities and research bodies.

Now Die Dejean is applying for positions in Europe.

“I want to work wherever they allow me to do the research,” said the scientist, who studies fish stocks to ensure tuna is being fished sustainably.

“I’m eagerly waiting for some of the things that are coming from the European Union... increasing the opportunities for scientists like me to come back,” said Die Dejean, who was born in Spain but has spent most of his career in the United States and Australia.

Trump’s administration says billions of dollars in cuts are needed to curb the federal deficit and bring the US debt under control.

His cutbacks on research come amid a broader clash that has seen Trump criticise universities as discriminatory for their diversity policies and denounce what he sees as a failure by some institutions to protect Jewish students from antisemitism.

The threat to academics’ livelihoods at universities including Yale, Columbia and Johns Hopkins has given Europe’s political leaders hope they could reap an intellectual windfall.

A letter, reviewed by Reuters, signed in March by 13 European countries including France, Germany and Spain, urged the EU Commission to move fast to attract academic talent.

The European Research Council, an EU body that finances scientific work, told Reuters it would double the relocation budget for funding researchers moving to the EU to €2mil (Rm10mil) per applicant. That goes towards covering the cost of moving to a European institution, which may involve setting up a laboratory.

In Germany, as part of coalition talks for a new government, conservatives and Social Democrats have drawn up plans to lure up to 1,000 researchers, according to negotiation documents from March seen by Reuters that allude to the upheaval in US higher learning.

Reuters spoke to 13 European universities and research institutes that reported seeing an increase in Us-based employees considering crossing the Atlantic, as well as half a dozen Us-based academics pondering a move to Europe.

“Regulatory uncertainty, funding cuts, immigration restrictions, and diminished international collaboration create a perfect storm for brain drain,” said Gray Mcdowell of US digital consultancy firm Capgemini Invent.

A White House official said the administration is analysing research grants and prioritising funding for areas likely to deliver returns for taxpayers “or some sort of meaningful scientific advancement”. The NOAA cuts were designed to avoid compromising its ability to do its duties, the official added.

Pulling in US talent to Europe requires more than good will though. It requires money.

For decades, Europe has lagged far behind the United States on investment in its seats of higher learning. Total expenditure on research and development in the EU among businesses, governments, universities and private non-profit organisations in 2023 was €381bil, according to the latest figures by Eurostat – the statistical office of the European Union.

That same year, total research and experimental development in the United States was estimated at Us$940bil, according to the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, a federal agency that provides data on the performance of science and engineering in the United States.

And while the US’S richest university, Harvard, has an endowment worth Us$53.2bil that of Britain’s wealthiest, Oxford, is only £8.3bil.

One academic and an expert in academia said, even with a concerted and substantial effort, Europe would likely need a long time to overturn that spending advantage.

The White House official said even with the cuts, the United States would still account for the most global research funding, adding: “Europe is not going to and cannot fill the void.”

Dozens of scientists have taken to social media encouraging peers to stay in the United States, while others acknowledge a number of drawbacks may deter them from moving.

Michael Olesen, director of an infection prevention programme for a healthcare system in Washington, said language barriers were one potential drawback, as were unfamiliar laws and employment practices.

Salary is another. “My impression is that I would get paid a lot less as an anaesthesiologist in Europe,” said Holden K. Groves, an Assistant Professor of Anaesthesiology at Columbia University, which received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “It’s a huge ordeal to change.”

Still, Europe’s political leaders feel the stance of the Trump administration has put the wind in their sails.

“The American government is currently using brute force against the universities in the United States, so that researchers from America are now contacting Europe,” Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, said this month.

“This is a huge opportunity for us.” John Tuthill, a American neuroscience professor at the University of Washington in Seattle, is assessing his options.

He cannot apply for new funding to plan beyond 2027 because grant applications have now been frozen.

The lab of 17 people he runs gets about three-quarters of its funding from the NIH, where the Trump administration has earmarked major cuts.

“Europe is the obvious one, because it is the other hub of biomedical research in the world,” said Tuthill, adding he is weighing up a move with his wife and daughter.

Aix Marseille University in France said it had received interest from 120 researchers at institutions in the United States, including NASA and Stanford, for a €15mil “safe space for science” programme launched on March 7. The initiative aims to attract US staff from fields including health, LGBT+ medicine, epidemiology and climate change.

“Our colleagues were frightened... It was our duty to rise to the occasion,” university director Eric Berton said, noting 10 European universities have contacted him about launching similar programmes.

In the Netherlands, the government wants to establish a fund to attract top foreign scientists and bolster the EU’S ‘strategic autonomy’ aims, Education Minister Eppo Bruins said in a letter.

That marks a policy shift as the government had previously announced plans to cut half a billion euros in research and higher education.

Eindhoven Tech University President Robert-jan Smits told Reuters that bringing in US scientists could boost Europe’s technological sovereignty in areas like semiconductors.

Belgium’s sister universities Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Universite Libre de Bruxelles have launched a scheme encouraging Us-based researchers to apply for 36 postdoctoral positions. And the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, which promotes the exchange of top scientists to Germany, plans to increase its programmes by about 20%.

The Grantham Institute at Imperial College London, which specialises in climate change research, is creating at least two more research fellowship posts for early-career climate researchers from the United States and has already seen an clear uptick in applications, said its Director of Research, Joeri Rogelj..- Reuters

America First,' science on the sidelines?: US-China ...


OPINION / VIEWPOINT
‘America First,’ science on the sidelines?: US-China-Europe expert dialogue
Published: Apr 24, 2025 10:28 PM
Student workers of Columbia union members protest Columbia University's recent policy changes and call for protection of international students, restoration of funding, and academic freedom at Columbia University in New York City, US, on March 24, 2025. Photo: IC

Student workers of Columbia union members protest Columbia University's recent policy changes and call for protection of international students, restoration of funding, and academic freedom at Columbia University in New York City, US, on March 24, 2025. Photo: IC


Editor's Note:


In recent years, the US has faced unprecedented challenges to its ability to attract top global talent. The "brain drain" in the field of scientific research has been frequently discussed in the media and academia, especially under the current US administration's "America First" policy. The Global Times brings together three experts from China, the US and Europe to discuss how Washington's policy is driving away scientists and its impact on the US' research ecosystem, global talent mobility as well as the future of the global competition in scientific research.

Anthony Moretti, associate professor at the Department of Communication and Organizational Leadership at Robert Morris University

History reminds us that one reason to account for America's prestigious position in areas such as science is that it consistently opened its arms to researchers across the world. Likewise, immigration policies that welcomed such scholars ensured that the US benefited from intellectual firepower whether it was created at home or brought in from elsewhere. Now, America risks suffering from brain drain.

How is it possible that the US, the mythical land of the free, is now a place some scholars want to flee?

Through its insistence that too many colleges and universities are dedicated to "woke" policies and practices and its equally corrosive threats to take away critical grant money, the administration is making it harder and harder for researchers at America's most exceptional institutions to do their jobs. Those with the scholarship or research records that allow them to consider non-US universities are looking elsewhere. Why risk watching decades of work be destroyed?

Many scholars look at the federal government's determination to deport foreign-born graduate students and cannot help but wonder if faculty will be next. Granted, the courts might step in and make it harder for the government to kick international graduate students out of the country. But who could blame a foreign-born researcher for thinking that the courts could decide instead to endorse the president's plans? Why risk deportation?

Do enough people in Washington, and more specifically at the White House, understand the ramifications of losing some of the most intelligent people currently living in the country? US citizens are often told that their country's freedoms explain why millions of people, including the most educated, from across the globe want to live and work in America. That story now rings hollow. Over the past few decades, the US built the largest innovation engine the world has ever seen, but that engine risks short-circuiting.


Li Zheng, research fellow at the Institute of American Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations

In the post-World War II era, the US built an unrivaled innovation system with its open policies and abundant funding, attracting top talents from around the world. However, this long-standing position is being challenged as recent "America First" policies have created obstacles to continued progress.

For a long time, the US innovation system has been highly dependent on government strategic guidance, diverse teams and overseas scientists. The government has guided the scientific research system through many organizations, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation, to explore the best path. The relative transcendence and independence of scientific research institutions also allow scientists to focus their own research areas and make freer choices. Besides, foreign scientists have been the mainstay of the US innovation system, allowing it to continue to gather the world's best talents.

However, the current US administration's science policy has brought harm to the US science, technology and innovation system in three ways. First, research and development funding has shrunk dramatically, with many scientific research organizations being the focus of budget cuts and layoffs. Second, the research climate in the country has been politicized. Third, the US has become more inward-looking and xenophobic in terms of scientific and technological exchanges.

Together, these have put the US science, technology and innovation system at risk of a historic setback. As the US risks losing its researchers more and more, the world isn't stopping. Europe and Canada are welcoming US scientists who want to run away from the country with open arms. Thirteen European governments asked the EU to welcome "brilliant talents from abroad who might suffer from research interference and ill-motivated and brutal funding cuts," while Canada has already become the destination for US scientists who have been laid off and are considering running away. Washington's decision to move against the science and technological development has also given more Asian countries a chance to catch up. China, South Korea and Singapore are investing more in R&D and building world-class research infrastructures. These countries may replace the US as a pole of global science and technology innovation in the future.


Sebastian Contin Trillo-Figueroa, a geopolitics analyst from Spain with a specialization in EU-Asia relations

The Trump administration's policies toward science have researchers witness a core civil right vanishing at speed. As a result, many conclude their work is at risk; and that they could pursue it more freely elsewhere.

Yet it's important to recognize that US researchers remain the best-paid in the world, with access to unmatched research funding. Their decision to leave, despite such advantages, underscores the scale of discontent.

This could have a severe negative effect on the US' scientific and tech development and innovation. First, US scientific leadership is now exposed to internal political turbulence in a way not seen before. Second, allies may begin to sever their reliance on US-based research, while the erosion of institutions like NIH weakens US influence in global science diplomacy. Third, the US may serve as a cautionary tale, demonstrating how easy it is to lose global talent, rather than attract it.

The deeper concern for the US may not be technological decline alone, but a fracture between national identity and its scientific community. Researchers, like many immigrants today, may come to believe the so-called American Dream no longer exists.

The outflow of US-based scientists redistributes knowledge and dilutes American dominance over global research. However, the loss of disillusioned US-based scientists is a net gain elsewhere. The weakening of US research leadership opens space for Europe and Asia to expand their scientific influence. Europe is well-positioned to absorb this shift, drawing on institutional infrastructure, transnational networks, and appeal as a space offering welfare protection and a high quality of life.

While Europe may lead in regulation-intensive fields, Asia - driven by China, India and regional innovation hubs - can pursue development-focused models anchored in long-term planning and state-backed research. China, in particular, may use the opening to advance its own scientific models, supported by large-scale investments and increasingly competitive conditions for high-skilled migrants. If China capitalizes on this exodus, it could absorb much of this talent - and, in doing so, tilt global scientific leadership.

The influx of US-trained scientists becomes not only a boost to research excellence, but a lever for reordering global hierarchies of expertise. Institutional responses across Europe and Asia should be strategic. Talent absorption feeds national innovation strategies and enhances soft power. For instance, China may scale up various initiatives with greater flexibility, aiming to capture expertise while managing reputational risks.


Friday, May 2, 2025

Covid-19 may have emerged in US first, China issues Covid-19 white paper

Office buildings sit empty in Michigan
BEIJING, April 30 (Reuters) - China restated its case that COVID-19 may have originated in the United States in a white paper on its pandemic response released on Wednesday after President Donald Trump's administration blamed a lab leak in China.
The White House launched a COVID-19 website on April 18 in which it said the coronavirus came from a lab leak in China while criticising former President Joe Biden, former top U.S. health official Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization.
In the white paper, released by the official Xinhua news agency, China accused the U.S. of politicising the matter of the origins of COVID-19. It cited a Missouri lawsuit which resulted in a $24 billion ruling against China for hoarding protective medical equipment and covering up the outbreak.
China shared relevant information with the WHO and the international community in a timely manner, the white paper said, emphasising that a joint study by the WHO and China had concluded that a lab leak was "extremely unlikely".
The U.S. should not continue to "pretend to be deaf and dumb", but should respond to the legitimate concerns of the international community, the white paper said. - 
Reuters

THE State Council Information Office has issued a white paper titled Covid-19 Prevention, Control and Origins Tracing: China’s Actions and Stance.

Apart from the preface and conclusion, the document contains three chapters: ‘Contributing Chinese Wisdom to the Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2,’ ‘China’s Contribution to the Global Fight Against Covid-19,’ and ‘The Mismanaged Response of the US to the Covid-19 Pandemic.’

According to the white paper, since the outbreak of Covid-19, China has consistently dedicated substantial resources to collaborative studies into the origins of the virus, involving both Chinese and international scientists.

Upholding its international responsibilities, the country spearheaded research initiatives in critical fields such as clinical epidemiology, molecular epidemiology, environmental epidemiology and the identification of animal hosts.

China cooperated with the World Health Organisation (WHO) on the study of virus origins with a strong sense of global responsibility and transparency.

The white paper points out that ‘WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part-Joint WHO-China Study,’ as well as other studies, conducted systematic epidemiological investigations, molecular tracing, animal reservoir screening, and studies on cold-chain pathways, ruled out the possibility of Wuhan being the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and concluded that a Wuhan lab leak is extremely unlikely.

China shared the epidemic information with the WHO and the international community in a timely manner, and provided the genome sequence of the virus. 

China also invited WHO international expert missions to conduct joint research into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, shared without reservation its effective measures for prevention, control, diagnosis and treatment and did all it could to provide massive supplies and extensive aid to the international community.

As pointed out in the white paper, the US government, instead of facing squarely its failure in response to Covid-19 and reflecting on its shortcomings, has tried to shift the blame and divert people’s attention by shamelessly politicising SARS-CoV-2 origins tracing.

Substantial evidence suggested the Covid-19 might have emerged in the United States earlier than its officially claimed timeline, and earlier than the outbreak in China.

The United States should respond to the reasonable concern of the international community, and give a responsible answer to the world.

China will continue to work with all nations in advancing global public health and good governance, and contribute more proactively to preventing new infectious diseases in the future. — Xinhua

China releases white paper on Covid-19 prevention, control and origins tracing 

Full text: Covid-19 Prevention, Control and Origins Tracing: China's Actions and Stance 

Related posts:

Searching for Covid-19’s origin




FORT DETRICK, THE UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL WARFARE LAB IS WHERE
 CORONAVIRUS ORIGINATED