Share This

Sunday, September 5, 2021

US needs to work with China n pandemic fight; Let’s return to reason and science:US economist

 

Expert: Both countries should cooperate in fight against pandemic

Prof Dr Jeffrey Sachs

 

 

KUALA LUMPUR: The United States needs to work with China to find a global solution in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, says prominent academician Prof Dr Jeffrey Sachs

“This is tragic, since China has done an excellent job of suppressing the pandemic, and the world could and should have learned a lot more from China’s response.

The United States should learn some good manners to work cooperatively with China, rather than trying to impose its will on that nation,” the head of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission said.

In an email interview, the Columbia University lecturer was asked to comment on the increasing friction between the US and China over the origins of the coronavirus and the pressure on the World Health Organisation to conduct another round of investigations to determine the source of the problem.

“Both governments have information that they should add to the investigation of the origin of the virus.

“Indeed, much of the research underway at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a joint US-China project, with funding by the US.

“Therefore, there is no cause for finger-pointing by one country towards the other. We need scientific cooperation between the US and China in the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19,” he added.

On how the synergy can be established and areas to focus on, Dr Sachs said “scientists from the two countries have actually been working together on SARS-like viruses”.

“The two governments should be cooperating transparently together. Both should be adding more information to the investigation. The US should acknowledge its role in the laboratory work, and therefore, its co-responsibility in investigating the possible origins of the virus.”

Dr Sachs said rich countries had also not generously shared their knowledge, especially on vaccines, adding that the major regions including the United States, Euro­pean Union, China, India, Russia and Asean had not attempted any kind of coordinated response.

“The global financing system has favoured the rich countries, providing too little support to developing countries,” he said.

“The culture in many societies – such as the United States – has put personal behaviour ahead of the social good.

“In the name of ‘liberty’, Americans have failed to follow basic rules and protocols, and the disease has therefore been allowed to run rampant in the US.”

WONG CHUN WAI

> See the full interview on Let’s return to reason and science - Award-winning Jeffrey D. Sachs is an economics professor, best-selling author, innovative educator and a global leader in sustainable development. He serves as the director of the Center for Sustainable Develop­ment at Columbia University in New York, and is a University Professor, Columbia’s highest academic rank.

Source link

 

 Let’s return to reason and science

  Looking ahead: Malaysia’s Institute for Medical Research is currently working on a few Covid-19 vaccines. — SAMUEL ONG/The Star

 Internationally renowned academician Professor Dr Jeffrey Sachs, who heads the Lancet Covid-19 Commission, shares his views in an exclusive interview on the fight against the pandemic, the US-China rivalry and his call to Malaysia to produce its own vaccine.


The United States should learn some good manners to work cooperatively with China, rather than trying to impose its will on that nation," said renowned U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs.

 Prof Dr Sachs: Malaysia started late in vaccination because it’s not a vaccine producer, but now, the country is catching up. Malaysia should aim to produce vaccines in the future. 

Prof Dr Sachs: Malaysia started late in vaccination because it’s not a vaccine producer, but now, the country is catching up. Malaysia should aim to produce vaccines in the future.

> The Lancet Covid-19 Commission was created to help speed up global, equitable and lasting solutions to the pandemic. How much has been achieved and what are the hurdles?

The global response to the pandemic has been wholly inadequate. This results from five main factors:

(1) The epidemic has been handled as a matter of national policy-making, without adequate regional and global coordination;

(2) The major regions, including the US, EU, China, India, Russia and Asean, have not attempted any kind of coordinated response;

(3) The rich countries have not fairly shared their technologies, especially on vaccines;

(4) The global financing system has favoured the rich countries, providing too little support to the developing countries;

(5) The culture in many societies – such as the United States – have put personal behaviour ahead of the social good. In the name of “liberty”, Americans have failed to follow basic rules and protocols, and the disease has therefore been allowed to run rampant in the United States.

Perhaps the main geopolitical problem has been the failure of the US to work with China for global solutions. This is tragic, since China has done an excellent job of suppressing the pandemic, and the world could and should have learned a lot more from China’s response.

> On a personal level, what is your role?

I am participating in policy discussions almost daily with governments and international organisations, as well as with the Commissioners and the experts on our various task forces. My job is to help coordinate the work of the Commission, and to oversee the drafting of various statements and the final report, which will be published in mid-2022.

While the world still battles the raging pandemic, new variants have surfaced, making it harder to contain the problem.

> What are your views on the continuing obstacles?

The delta variant has been a huge setback, but given the faulty policies by so many governments around the world, the emergence of new variants like delta has been made much more likely by the delays in comprehensively suppressing the virus. We should have known better but failed to act wisely.

> Vaccination remains the most effective way to fight the pandemic. What is your view on how Malaysia is handling its vaccination exercise?

We know that the vaccines are not enough to stop transmission – as Israel has shown (with high vaccine coverage but a strong epidemic). Vaccines cut serious disease, but do not stop transmission by themselves. Thus, countries need to combine vaccination with strong suppression policies (based on social distancing, prohibition of super-spreader events, face mask wearing, widespread and readily available testing, emphasis on outdoor rather than indoor activities, contact tracing, and other measures). Malaysia started late in vaccination because it’s not a vaccine producer, but now, the country is catching up. Malaysia should aim to produce vaccines in the future.

> Obtaining vaccines continues to be an issue for many developing countries. It’s worse in Africa. How real is the hoarding of vaccines by powerful developed countries?

Very real. The failure of the vaccine-producing countries to come up with a plan to scale up production and distribution of vaccines to developing countries is a great disappointment. It is a moral failure as well as a practical failure, leading to more deaths and more chances of dangerous variants.

> Many scientists have said the third vaccination – the booster – isn’t necessary as it will further deprive many countries from having access to the supply. What are your thoughts?

The evidence is not comprehensive, but it is a shame for rich countries to give the third dose without even a plan for the first dose in much of the world. That is unwise, unfair, and immoral in my view. The US, China, Russia, EU, UK, and India should present a coherent, coordinated plan for global vaccination coverage, and the US and EU should waive IP (intellectual property) to facilitate the scale-up of vaccine production in more countries. China, for example, should be helped to speed the production of mRNA vaccines.

> Ordinary people are overloaded with all kinds of information. Vaccines – whether they are Pfizer, AstraZeneca or Sinovac, are basically the same, but because the US, Europe and China have adopted different requirements, it has led to anxiety for securing entry into these countries. What are your views on this?

Once again, there is too little coordination and cooperation among the major countries, and too little sharing of information.

> Can you comment on how politics, especially geopolitical rivalry, can be separated from science?

The United States should learn some good manners, to work cooperatively with China rather than try to impose its will on the country.

> What is your comment on the increasing friction between China and the US over the origins of the coronavirus and the pressure on the WHO to have another round of investigations to determine its source?

Both governments have information that they should add to the investigation on the origin of the virus. Indeed, much of the research underway at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a joint US-China project, with funding by the US. Therefore, there is no cause for finger-pointing by one country at the other. We need scientific cooperation between the US and China in the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.

> What should the US and China be doing in the fight against the pandemic, instead of having this side issue? How can both sides work together and in what areas can they combine resources? Both sides have accused each other of the virus originating from lab leaks.

As I just mentioned, scientists from the two countries have actually been working together on SARS-like viruses. The two governments should be cooperating transparently together. Both should be adding more information to the investigation. The US should acknowledge its role in the laboratory work, and therefore, its co-responsibility in investigating the possible origins of the virus.

> The WHO’s team, comprising experts from China and other countries, arrived in Wuhan for a month’s investigations into the origins of the virus. There is now another request for a follow up probe while China has also demanded a separate investigation into Fort Detrick in the US. What is your take?

We need a clear investigation of the joint US-China research programme to see if, by some terrible accident, it somehow contributed to a research-related spill over event. That is one hypothesis that needs investigation, along with various possibilities of natural spill over events.

> Finally, in the post Covid-19 pandemic world, how should the world and health experts brace for more infectious diseases?

We have many disease crises around the world, ranging from known infectious diseases that are not yet properly controlled (such as Malaria, worm infections, TB, HIV, etc.), as well as emerging infectious diseases such as Covid-19, non-communicable diseases (such as the global diabetes epidemic), and environmental ills (such as lung and cardiovascular diseases caused by air pollution). We should be investing far more resources into epidemiology, disease surveillance, disease prevention, and disease treatments. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria should become the Global Health Fund, to finance the response to the global disease burden in developing countries. All of this requires foresight, long-term thinking, and more resources from the rich world

 

 Related

 

US needs to work with China in pandemic fight: US economist

 

US needs to work with China in pandemic fight: US economist

 

 

Related posts:

 

‘Use science, not politics': China asks WHO to investigate Fort Detrick, UNC bio labs through diplomatic channel

‘Use science, not politics’ 

 

 World scientists slam COVID-19 ‘lab-leak’ theory; Western scientists face government probe, death threats for opposing COVID-19 lab-leak theory

 

 

WHO-China joint report on virus origins:Wuhan Lab-leak is "extremely unlikely", ‘more states should be probed’...

 

Lie, Smear campaign of COVID-19 origin probe;Cornerstone of strategic deterrence

 

Smear campaign serving

The US has found the world order quickly shifting and is feeling uneasy with the challenge from China.

 China says ‘no’ to US smears over COVID-19 as 20 million Chinese petition for Fort Detrick probe

 

 Update Online petition for Fort Detrick probe draws 20m signatures; China urges US to open UNC lab, disclose military games patients...

 

Virus probe needs more early samples, countries: scientists


 

  United States, terrorist in virus origins tracing

 

China in top spot for research amid US struggling to ‘contain’ China rise

 

 Botched Afghan retreat reveals an America struggling to contain China

` Unable to better China in positive competition and with military options unfeasible, the US can only fall back on the ‘moral high ground’. But in its hasty Afghan withdrawal, to focus on China, the US risks losing even this -

Saturday, September 4, 2021

Washington cannot define China-US climate cooperation: Global Times editorial

https://youtu.be/e0bXOp3OgXk 

China calls for cooperation in fight against climate change


Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with the US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry via video link on Wednesday. Photo: AFP

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with the US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry via video link on Wednesday. Photo: AFP

 

US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry is on his second visit to China this year, hoping to promote China-US cooperation on the climate issue. As the climate issue is a common concern of all mankind, Beijing and Washington jointly promoting the full implementation of the Paris Agreement benefits not only the two countries, but also the entire world.

However, US expectations - separating the cooperation on climate issue from the entire China-US ties, giving such joint work a special hype in disregard of the overwhelming complexity of other aspects of the bilateral relationship, making the Joe Biden administration look righteous and reasonable through the lens of climate cooperation, helping the administration win more points politically - seem quite absurd.

The overall US policy toward China has been so wicked. It has imposed a whole-of-government and wide-scale crackdown on China. Then the US suddenly put on a friendly face on the climate issue, inviting China to cooperate with it as if nothing has ever happened. The US wishes to ask China to make new concessions that go beyond the latter's own promises to coordinate US leadership. As Chinese people often ask, "What on earth are you talking about?"

The US strategic containment against China has severely divided the world and threatened China's long-term security. Objectively speaking, the US has destroyed the foundation for the world to do something great together. The COVID-19 pandemic is surging across the world but countries are acting in their own ways. This is the result of political antagonism in today's world.

The US is, on the one hand, making the utmost effort to divide the world, while on the other, building a drawbridge over the huge gap among the major powers. The rope of the drawbridge is held in Washington's hand. The US lowers the drawbridge when it needs it, and raises it up when it doesn't need it any more. It shows Washington's unscrupulous desire to control the world. Is there any reason for China to let the US get whatever it wants?

China and the US can work together on the climate issue and carry out necessary cooperation. But it is obviously hard for the entire Chinese society to accept placing such cooperation in the arrogant logic of the US' China policy of "competition, cooperation, and confrontation," or letting the US arbitrarily define the political implications of China-US cooperation on the climate issue. The US lacks both morality and justice to do so, and it lacks a compelling force to ask China to offer what the US wants.

Cooperation must be mutually beneficial. This is both the principle of sticking to the facts and a strategic morality. If the US continues its comprehensive containment of China, and keeps pushing the hostility between the two countries, it will create constant pollution in the space for bilateral cooperation. This is common sense and conventional wisdom. Many of the US policies toward China are zero-sum, leaving the world a strong impression that the US would not be satisfied until it suffocates China's development. Under such circumstances, Chinese society's willingness to cooperate with the US can hardly be immune to the impact of vigilance against the US.

Washington should not have thought that showing a little willingness toward cooperation in its comprehensive containment of Beijing is "mercy" to China. If they really think that way, they will find no grateful Chinese.

When it comes to climate, China believes that cooperation is necessary, as stated earlier. But if the cooperation has other extended meanings aimed at boosting Washington's political gains, such cooperation must be considered in the big picture of China-US ties. As China is a powerful major country, it has unique influence in many international affairs around the globe. No matter in which field the US hopes to cooperate with China and at the same time promote the US benefits, such joint work must be linked with the entire China-US relationship.

China wants to improve its ties with the US, but China will not do everything to please the US. The major power relationship between China and the US should be on an equal footing and follow the basic principle of mutual respect. If the US ever attempts to treat China forcefully in this logic - asking China to keep putting up good shows, ones that are thought good enough to satisfy the US, then the US returns the favor by relaxing tensions - it is totally wrong. This is not the way the Chinese people like to deal with other countries, and we do not want such "improvement" in China-US relations at all.

Source link

 

ELATED ARTICLES

 

 Related:

 

  ` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ...
 
 
` A recent US CDC report found COVID-19 antibodies in blood samples as early as Dec 13, 2019. With more & more evidence surfacing a...
 
 
Fort Detrick, UNC labs at center of virus origins controversy A member of the Frederick Police Department Special Response Team peers out .
 
 
‘Use science, not politics’   China is concerned that the so-called US intelligence report on the origins of the coronavirus will contain p...
 
 
Suaram adviser questions Pakatan Harapan's funding from the National Endowment for Democracy https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/202...
 
 
  Botched Afghan retreat reveals an America struggling to contain China ` Unable to better China in positive competition and with mil..

The fund flow conundrum

 

THE FBM KLCI closed above 1,600 points this week for the first time in five months since March 23, 2021.

It has been six consecutive days that our index continued to scale impressively. The index was single-handedly lifted due to the foreign funds flowing back into Bursa Malaysia with limited support by local institutions and retail investors, who have been net sellers.

Interestingly, this coincided with the resolution of the political impasse in our country with the eventual appointment of Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri as the new Prime Minister, the third in three years.

As of end-July 2021, foreign participation in terms of market capitalisation in our local equity market was at a record low of 20.2%.

After 25 months of a consecutive selloff by foreign funds of Malaysian equities, is this the inflection point that stock market investors have been fervently looking forward to?

There are many layers of questions to this overarching theme, but in my view, the most important would be the need to understand what investors want.

Investors ultimately want returns. So if they were to invest in our local stock market, they hope to be able to get the returns, as otherwise, they might as well invest elsewhere.

Malaysia’s weightage on global indexes has shrunk since its peak pre-1997/98 Asian Financial Crisis.

A simple gauge would be the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, where the FBM KLCI’s weightage has been declining from 19.94% in 1994 to 1.36% as at Aug 30, 2021 as shown in the pie chart (see chart).

https://cdn.thestar.com.my/Content/Images/MCSI_Emerging_Market_Index_market_value.jpg

This simply means how insignificant the Malaysian stock market has become in the eyes of global investors.

There is also a direct correlation to the performance of the companies in our local index.

Could it be that our listed companies are either undervalued or underperforming to regional peers, especially in the context of emerging markets?

There is no absolute answer to this as it is at times, a chicken-and-egg issue. Which one actually comes first?

Without foreign fund flows, the valuation of listed companies will remain low, as the market participants would be limited, resulting in a constrained money supply in the local bourse.

Conversely, it is true as well. Why should foreign funds invest in our local stock market and listed companies if the valuation versus their growth trajectory or earnings is not in tandem?

A good example would be Singapore. The Singapore Exchange (SGX) for the past 10 years has suffered a wave of delistings.

In 2010, there were 783 listed companies on the SGX. As at end-2020, there were only 715 listed companies remaining.

The peak of the Straits Times Index (STI) was 3,575 points and it has been on a downtrend ever since. Due to the country’s Covid-19 resilience, the STI started picking up ahead of regional peers towards the end of 2020 and reached 3,087 points as of Wednesday.

The predicament that Singapore went through is rather perplexing as any investor who has scoured the SGX would realise the companies are mostly undervalued not only in terms of valuation but also yields.

If we were to compare Singapore’s listed companies today, they are still undervalued comparatively to our local companies.

The blue-chip tech, banking and utilities companies in terms of valuation are on average more attractive than those listed on Bursa.

In the midst of this earnings season, looking at the reports, apart from the commodities sector, blue chips and select consumer/FMCG companies which were exemplary, others showed improvement but it is still far from recovery.

On face value, many did well if we take into consideration that the same quarter last year was the worst quarter for most companies as they had felt the full impact of MCO 1.0.

Bigger pull: The bull and bear fronting the Bursa Malaysia building. The local bourse needs more companies which can command a dominating position in the global market.

Bigger pull: The bull and bear fronting the Bursa Malaysia building. The local bourse needs more companies which can command a dominating position in the global market.

Whether our local stock market can remain competitive and capture the interest of foreign funds rely on many factors, among which are:

> the ease of entry and exit (access),

> low barriers of entry (cost),

> economic growth prospects (potential),

> political stability (certainty),

> unique value proposition (world-class companies only available in Malaysia), and

> favourable tax regimes (policies).

With all these factors in play and every market in the world vying for the same pool of funds, there must be a unique proposition for our local stock market.

Of course, the vibrancy of the local stock market would also require emphasis placed on local retail investors apart from our local institutions (mostly the sovereign, pension and government linked funds) which act as the anchor.

Only with that, Malaysia can break away from the usual stigma of “small population, limited growth trajectory”.

A good place to start would be the reform on market policies to be more investor-friendly.

However, the game changer would be favourable policies which can nurture, support and grow industries or SMEs such that they would be able to become world-class companies someday yet continue to list on Bursa.

The United States and Hong Kong markets are able to attract global investors’ interest primarily due to the unique companies which are listed on their bourse such as Amazon, Netflix, Tencent, JD.com, Google among many others.

Our own stock market need such companies to attract foreign funds and sustain their interest.

Bursa does have some good names which are not readily available elsewhere in the world such as those in the technology semiconductor space, glove sector, palm oil sector and plastics packaging sector.

We need more companies that either command dominating position in the global market share within their sector or trailblazers that move the country towards the preferred sectors.

This would be more sustainable to ensure foreign funds investing in our markets is not solely because our listed companies are undervalued but rather for the companies’ unique position itself.

In my humble view, a two pronged approach of encouraging good companies and getting them to list locally can address this predicament.

As an example, the precursor would be favourable policies accorded to foreign direct investment entities should also be given to local home-grown companies which meets the criteria, be it tax incentives or cheap land and so on.

Once the companies grows to a healthy size, to encourage them to list on Bursa, lower listing fees, ease of listing requirements or tax breaks for cornerstone investors or funds investing in home-grown companies listing on Bursa would go a long way.

That way, investors around the world who want a piece of these companies would have little alternative but to invest in our local stock market.

The fund flow conundrum of our local stock market will then eventually see some light at the end of the tunnel.

Ng Zhu Hann 

Ng Zhu Hann

 
Hann, is the author of Once Upon A Time In Bursa. He is a lawyer & former Chief Strategist of a Fortune 500 Corporation.

Source link

 

Related News

 

Related posts:

 

  THE Sengoku period (also known as the “Warring States period”) of Japan from 1467 to 1615 is a period of great turbulence and unrest due...
 

 

Learn to invest in stocks properly

Tuesday, August 31, 2021

Pakatan’s dependency on dubious NED funding, Suaram

Suaram adviser questions Pakatan Harapan's funding from the National Endowment for Democracy

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/08/30/suaram-adviser-questions-pakatan-harapan039s-funding-from-the-national-endowment-for-democracy


MALAYSIAN CIVIL SOCIETY MUST SEVER NED FUNDING TO BE CREDIBLE ( by Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser, 30.8.2021)

It is painful to watch Malaysian NGOs squirming their way out of justifying NED funding for their activities. The NGO I belong to, SUARAM used to receive funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) until the organisation was exposed as a CIA “soft power” front for the US government several years ago. Knowing the blood-drenched “regime changing” record of th...

Lihat Lagi  https://www.facebook.com/kiasoong.kua/posts/3761531817280035

  

https://youtu.be/DPt-zXn05ac

'We lied, we cheated, we stole', ‘the Glory of American experiment’ by US former Secretary of State/Ex-CIA director Mike Pompeo 


PETALING JAYA: Pakatan Harapan should explain its dependence on funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), says Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) adviser Kua Kia Soong.Inside America's Meddling Machine: NED, the US-Funded Org Interfering in Elections Across the Globe “It is up to Pakatan Harapan to explain their dependence on NED funding if they can,” he said in a statement on Facebook yesterday.

Daniel Twining, the president of the International Republican Institute (IRI) revealed three years ago that they – through NED – had been funding the Opposition in Malaysia since 2002.

NED is a non-governmental organisation in the United States that was founded in 1983 for promoting democracy in other countries by developing political groups, trade unions, deregulated markets and business associations.

Twining allegedly told a forum in 2018 that the IRI, with funds from the NED, had worked to strengthen Malaysian opposition parties and its efforts paid off when Pakatan Harapan won the 14th General Election.

Kua also urged all NGOs in the country to stop accepting funds from NED to remain credible.

Kua said Suaram used to receive funding from the NED until the organisation was exposed as a CIA “soft power” front for the US government several years ago.

“Knowing the blood-drenched ‘regime changing’ record of the CIA in so many third world countries since 1947, we could not continue receiving funds from such a dubious source for our own credibility.

Source link

 

Related:

 

Suaram adviser questions Pakatan Harapan's funding from ...

 

Suaram adviser questions Pakatan Harapan's funding from ...

 

Related posts:

 

  Botched Afghan retreat reveals an America struggling to contain China ` Unable to better China in positive 
 
‘Use science, not politics’   China is concerned that the so-called US intelligence report on the origins of the coronavirus will contain p...
 

Sunday, August 29, 2021

China in top spot for research amid US struggling to ‘contain’ China rise

 Botched Afghan retreat reveals an America struggling to contain China

` Unable to better China in positive competition and with military options unfeasible, the US can only fall back on the ‘moral high ground’. But in its hasty Afghan withdrawal, to focus on China, the US risks losing even this -

Illustration: Stephen Case

  Whether America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan marks the end of US world hegemony remains to be seen. President Joe Biden has made it very clear that the United States withdrew to concentrate more on containing China’s rise – that is, extending its hegemony in a more effective and focused manner.


` The US positions its relations with China within a “competition, cooperation and confrontation” formula. But as China’s vice-foreign minister, Xie Feng, said during talks with his US counterpart in Tianjin last month, the US is going all out to confront and contain China while demanding its cooperation whenever needed.

` Unsurprisingly, when the Taliban swiftly took power in the Afghan capital of Kabul, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken immediately called on Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to help with the situation.

` China blames the US for thinking only about its own concerns: how can the US set out to harm or undermine China, and still demand its cooperation?

` The US has fallen into a deep predicament in the face of a booming China. The American policy circle and social elite realise that, in many social, economic and governance areas – such as containing Covid-19, developing infrastructure, industrialisation, transiting to sustainable energy, achieving carbon neutrality and moving up to 5G communications – the US is either at a disadvantage or has no possibility of suppressing China right now.

https://youtu.be/LbRXFpkzlZs

` US President Joe Biden vows China “will not win this race” amid electric vehicle rivalry

` Back in April, Blinken admitted that the US had fallen behind China in the field of clean energy. In May, Biden said that while China’s annual research and development investment had risen from ninth in the world to first, the US had dropped from first to eighth.

` These figures proved inaccurate, but Biden’s words reflect American leaders’ anxiety about being surpassed by China in science and technology.

` Positive competition should be about substantially improving living standards and solving the problems facing humanity. Yet America’s real advantage over China boils down to its military power.

` But, as the Saigon flashback during the withdrawal from Kabul shows, America’s ability even to achieve its goals with military power is also very limited.

https://youtu.be/v87fC61K5BY

` Former British prime minister Tony Blair criticises US withdrawal from Afghanistan Former British prime minister Tony Blair criticises US withdrawal from Afghanistan


` Since the Soviet Union disintegrated, the US seems to have entered an era in which it relied on military power to act unilaterally and arbitrarily in the world. The bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 by a US-led Nato force can be said to be a textbook case of the US exercising military power at will.

` The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan went one step further. Ostensibly in retaliation for the September 11 attacks, it was in fact part of plans by some in the US to overthrow and rebuild regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Iran, one by one.

` This has been disastrous for the countries and the world at large. In Afghanistan, more than 30,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed in the war, with another 60,000 injured and millions forced to flee as refugees.

` The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the deaths of an estimated 200,000 civilians or more – and a legacy of some 25 million landmines. The long-standing Syrian civil war, whose democratic forces were supported by the US, has left about 6 million Syrians displaced – the largest refugee crisis today.

https://youtu.be/fUSPxeXUs_8

` ‘I'm as old as the revolution’, Syrian boy turns 10 as nation marks decade of civil war ‘

 
` But when the US comes up against another strong military power, it cannot choose the military option. This was seen in US inaction over Russian military operations against Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014.

` Similarly, the US needs to avoid direct military conflict with China. While Beijing will not initiate military action, Washington would lose more than it could gain if it chose to go to war over Taiwan. Indeed, Beijing’s increasing defence capabilities are proving a deterrent for US military action against China and in the Asia-Pacific as a whole.

` Even with the US gone from Afghanistan, the world still needs to ensure America only uses its military power for national defence.

` Falling behind China in many spheres of competition, and with military options unfeasible, the US is left with its “moral high ground”. Hence, the Biden administration’s attempts to build an ideological alliance based on so-called human rights and democratic values.

https://youtu.be/AqlhWcV5pjs

` US warns American companies about operating in Hong Kong, sanctions 7 Chinese officials 

 
` The main aim of such an alliance is to attack China over democracy and minority rights in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Taiwan. But, in practice, such pressure is difficult to exert. In a world where information about the real situation in China is freely available to the larger world, it is impossible to pull the wool over people’s eyes all the time.

` Moreover, China has recently launched powerful counter-attacks against the US and other Western countries, exposing their ingrained racism and their dark histories of colonialism and genocide.

` In any case, should the US choose to compete negatively with China – that is, not by improving its capabilities, setting a better example for the world, and providing more public goods, but instead by weakening, attacking and containing China to maintain its advantage – it will lose its global audience.

` Afghanistan is an object lesson in how to ‘unbuild’ a country 16 Aug 2021 



  ` Over time, more countries and people will recognise America’s hypocrisy, double standards and weakness. The hurried retreat from Afghanistan has been costly in these terms for the US. Any perceived hypocrisy, or double standards in ideology and values will only damage America’s global leadership.

` This is the “China dilemma” the US faces today – it finds itself losing in areas of positive competition, yet by resorting to negative competition, it can only harm itself.

` For its part, China has made it clear it does not seek to defeat the US or overthrow the world order. To escape its China dilemma, the US needs to recognise the right of the Chinese people to live a better life, to modernise society, and to enjoy a safe and stable international environment.

By` Dr Zhengxu Wang who is distinguished professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs (SIRPA), Fudan University. Previously he served as senior fellow and acting director at the China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham, as well as research fellow at the East Asian Institute of the National University of Singapore.


China in top spot for research

 BEIJING: China has overtaken the United States for the first time in terms of the average number of high-quality scientific papers produced from 2017 to 2019, according to a report by a Japanese government-linked institute this month.

High-quality papers typically refer to the top 10% of the most cited scientific papers in their respective field.

` China topped the global ranking with an average of 40,219 such papers published annually in the three-year period, followed by the US with 37,124, and the United Kingdom with 8,687, according to Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2021.

` The report has been published annually since 1991 by the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, which is affiliated with Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Each report is based on the three-year period that ended two years before.

` The latest report found that US papers performed well in fields such as clinical medicine, basic life sciences, physics and geosciences from 2017 to 2019, while Chinese papers were most cited in the fields of materials science, chemistry, engineering, and computer sciences and mathematics.

` In the 1990s, China used to rank 10th or lower among major science nations in the number of high-quality scientific papers, the report said.

` However, it saw significant improvement in the following years, reaching second place globally by the late 2000s and holding onto that position until rising to the top between 2017 and 2019.

` Two factors that have contributed to China’s rapid rise in science and technology output are its massive talent pool and research budget. In 2019, China had around 4.86 million full-time research and development personnel and research expenditure of over 2.2 trillion yuan, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.

` China has also seen a steady rise in the annual number of new doctoral degree holders, reaching around 61,000 in 2019. That was second to the US, which had 90,000 new PhD recipients that year, the report said.

` A more prestigious category is called highly-cited papers, which are studies that performed in the top 1% based on the number of citations received, according to Web of Science, a global academic literature and citation database.

` From 2017 to 2019, the US published 4,413 highly-cited papers annually within the three-year period, followed by China with 4,046 and the UK with 970, the report said. — China Daily/ANN

` ` Source link

Chinese University Tops MIT in Engineering Rankings

 

China's leading spot in the race for technological innovation

 

US loses top spot to China in chemistry papers amid ...

Washington's increased sscrutiny of foreign ties in basic research.

 

China beats US to the top spot in filing international patents

 

China tells Blinken world must 'positively guide' Taliban - FMT

Related posts:

 

Taliban's rapid victory embarrasses US, smashes image, arrogance

 

 American rules-based order only serves Washington's hegemony: Chinese diplomat     The Vietnam War 1945–1975: “Napalm Girl”   US Vi...

 

  ` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ...
 
‘Use science, not politics’   China is concerned that the so-called US intelligence report on the origins of the coronavirus will contain p...