Weaponized tests: How US uses extraterritorial jurisdiction to intervene in international sports, tarnish China’s anti-doping efforts

 

Gold medallists Team China (center), silver medallists Team USA (left), and bronze medallists Team France pose on the podium of the men's 4x100m medley relay final swimming event during the Paris 2024 Olympic Games on August 4, 2024. Photos: VCG

As Pan Zhanle miraculously, yet unsurprisingly, surpassed the French swimmer alongside him in the final 50 meters and touched the wall first, China's swim team secured the gold medal in the men's 4x100m medley relay.

The achievement upended the US's streak of winning gold in the event for 10 consecutive Olympics.

Twenty-two minutes later, the Chinese women's team clinched the bronze in the same event. 

During the subsequent award ceremony, the swimmers from different countries gathered on the podium to celebrate and take selfies, marking the end of the swimming competition at the Paris 2024 Olympics.

Despite the smiles and flashing cameras, the recent controversies surrounding this swimming pool were hard to overlook.

Doping became a hot topic during the swimming events at the Paris 2024 Olympics. Some, including media sources from the US and the Western countries, seemed eager to seize on any opportunity to disparage Chinese swimmers by linking them to doping. 

The issue appears to go beyond sports, raising suspicions about the underlying motives. At what should be a venue for peace and friendship, this has almost become a new weapon to attack China.

US media and institutions have incessantly hyped the issue of doping at the Olympics, using it as a pretext to attack the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and criticize the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). 

However, on the contrary, doping issues involving athletes from the US often seem to be handled with much more leniency. In 2020, the US even passed the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, positioning itself as an international enforcer to intervene in doping cases worldwide, particularly targeting other nations.

Behind the US and Western "anti-doping" narrative lies a complex power dynamic that manipulates the sports field for political gain. The Paris Olympics once again highlighted how doping tests have been weaponized, severely disrupting the normal conduct of the Games. The abuse of anti-doping measures to create chaos in the Olympics is a prime example of the US-led "liberal international order" based on selective rule enforcement.

Paris farce

In the just-concluded drama that seems more fitting for a political stage than a sporting arena, the US and its allies have once again turned their attention to doping allegations, this time targeting the Chinese swimming team at the Paris 2024 Olympics. 

"I've lost count of how many tests I've done. I often get called for tests at 6 am," Qin Haiyang, a Chinese swimmer, candidly admitted during the press conference following the Paris Olympics' 4x100m mixed medley relay final on Saturday, where the Chinese team won silver, breaking the Asian record. "It really does impact our entire preparation rhythm," he added.

Earlier, Chinese swimmer Pan's victory in the men's 100m freestyle final at the Paris 2024 Olympics, with a time of 46.40 seconds, a fresh world record, drew suspicion from foreign media. On Friday, Chinese swimmer Zhang Yufei countered at an after-match press conference, asserting that Pan's performance was legitimate, questioning why no one scrutinized American swimmers Michael Phelps and Katie Ledecky.

Pau Gasol, former NBA player and a member of the IOC Athletes' Commission, expressed "regret" over the frequent doping tests faced by Chinese swimmers at a press conference during the Paris 2024 Olympics on Friday, calling for respect for WADA's authority and testing system.

According to the Chinese swim team, from May 5, when the team began training for the Paris 2024 Olympics, to July 22, the athletes underwent extensive international and domestic anti-doping tests, including both urine and blood tests, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

Zhang, Qin and several competitive swimmers were tested over 25 times each, while most other athletes underwent more than 20 tests. 

An insider told the Global Times that China has maintained a strict stance against doping violations, with an enforcement rigor that is arguably the highest in the world and recognized internationally as a high standard. China's punitive measures are also unique, involving severe administrative penalties for those who violate doping regulations. It can be said that China has been genuinely committed to anti-doping efforts over the years.

IOC President Bach holds a regular press conference at the Paris Olympics on August 3, 2024. Photo: VCG

Compared to the frequent therapeutic use exemptions (TUE) applications by American athletes, China's requests for TUEs are notably few. This is also largely because doping has long been a zero-tolerance issue in China, the insider noted.

World Aquatics noted that since January, each Chinese swimmer has been tested an average of 21 times by various anti-doping organizations. In contrast, Australian swimmers were tested an average of four times, and American swimmers six times.

Moreover, on Saturday, IOC President Thomas Bach emphasized that WADA and other authoritative bodies have the authority to decide the number of doping tests to ensure the fairness of Olympic competitions. 

Smear campaign

As the proverb goes, you can never wake someone who pretends to be asleep. In the face of truth, some Western media remains willfully blind.

One of the US' favored strategies in recent years has been to incessantly hype suspicions of doping among Chinese athletes. This tactic, shrouded in a veneer of concern for fair play, often seems more like a calculated move to cast a shadow over China's sporting achievements.

The tactic is both incredibly disgusting and offensive, as no matter the frequency with which the international and Chinese official institutions have refuted and clarified the accusations, the US government, media, and opinion leaders just turn a blind eye and continue to maliciously smear China's credibility. With false accusations, they jointly conspire to draw the targeted Chinese athletes into an incredibly time-consuming and energy-draining self-justification trap, observers noted.

Several major mainstream media outlets have played an essential role in the US' chain of fabricating and spreading the "doping" accusation. The latest round of hype started from a July 30 article by The New York Times (NYT), which quoted two anonymous sources "with direct knowledge of the matter," as saying that two Chinese swimmers "tested positive in 2022 for a banned steroid," including one who was named to be in the Olympic team in Paris. It viciously hinted that the swimmer used drugs and was unqualified for the ongoing Olympics.

Regardless of WADA's responding statement on the same day, which dismissed the NYT's accusations, mainstream US media like The Associated Press soon joined in spreading the slander, by citing one-sided sources from among US swimmers who expressed "disappointment" in their Chinese competitors. 

It's infuriating that self-claimed professional US news agencies play up anti-China sentiment in the Olympic arena while setting facts aside. "The politicization of anti-doping continues with this latest attempt by the media in the US to imply wrongdoing on the part of WADA and the broader anti-doping community," WADA said at the end of the statement, noting that it has been "unfairly caught in the middle of geopolitical tensions."

Similarly, before the Paris 2024 Olympics took place, the US had launched a round of misinformation campaign against Chinese swimmers, so as to exert public pressure on China and its athletes on the eve of this global sporting pageant.

In early July, some mainstream US media including the NYT, NBC, and CNN intensively reported that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Justice Department had opened a criminal investigation, into "how anti-doping authorities and sports officials allowed elite Chinese swimmers who had tested positive for a banned substance," to "escape punishment and win a slew of medals." 

The case they mentioned was about United States Anti-Doping Agency claiming that 23 Chinese swimmers were suspected of using a banned drug in 2021. It's worth noting that, WADA and FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation Association) had determined it was an accidental food contamination incident and absolved the involved swimmers after conducting an investigation, but the US government departments and media still hyped the case with misleading, suggestive language, which was "extremely rude and evil-minded," said observers in media and sports reached by the Global Times.

Michael Phelps (left), former Olympic athlete, Travis Tygart (center), Chief Executive Officer of the US Anti-Doping Agency, and Allison Schmitt, former Olympic athlete, are sworn in during a House Committee on anti-doping measures on June 25, 2024 in Washington DC. Photo: VCG

Worse still, US media publicly disclosed the complete name list of the 23 swimmers involved after they had been proven innocent. WADA prohibits making public the names of the innocent athletes who have been cleared of wrongdoing, Shang Ximeng, a research fellow at the Center for International Sport Communication and Diplomacy Studies at the Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the Global Times. She added that US media had seldom exposed the names of US athletes involved in similar cases.

"But this time, the media deliberately made the names of Chinese swimmers public and put them in the spotlight, so as to harm their reputation and bring disruption to their matches," she told the Global Times. "That was immoral and against the rules."

Weaponizing sports

American sports history is riddled with instances in which athletes caught using performance-enhancing drugs were shielded from consequences. 

For example, at the 1996 Olympic trials, Mary Slaney tested positive for steroids but claimed her positive result was due to birth control pills. US authorities later believed her and reinstated her eligibility. Similarly, in 1998, Dennis Mitchell's positive drug test was absurdly attributed to excessive sex and beer, a flimsy excuse that was accepted. 

The intersection of politics and sports has been a longstanding tool for the US to exert influence. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter called for a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, garnering support from 65 countries. 

David Niven, a political science professor from University of Cincinnati, asserts that understanding American life requires understanding its politics and sports, noting a resurgence of political activism in sports.

Shang noted that funding is an another tool the US uses to exert its jurisdiction in sports. Contributing about $3 million annually to WADA, the US leverages this to attempt to place more Americans as decision-making roles in WADA, threatening to cut funding otherwise. The Rodchenkov Act allows the US to conduct independent investigations and levy penalties, causing unease for WADA and the IOC. This act places US legal standards above global anti-doping efforts.

However, the global anti-doping field continues to harbor persistent malice toward China. As China's strength has become increasingly apparent, it has faced baseless accusations for a long time. Today, China has earned the respect and recognition of WADA through its own integrity and rigorous anti-doping efforts, analysts said.

Source link 

Related posts:

Paris Summer Olympics 2024 Medal Count: Live Updates

Racially divided, tone-deaf Malaysia at Paris Olympics

• 
  Rise of Chinese swimming vivid interpretation of Olympic spirit: Global Times editorial

  In a diverse world, athletes are learning to demonstrate their own and their group's image through their sportsmanship and professionalism. In this regard, the Chinese delegation has done very well.

  By Global Times | 2024/8/6 0:45:45
• 
  The West should respect China's development and breakthroughs: Global Times editorial

  Today, when Chinese athletes stand on the Olympic podium, it is the result of Chinese participation in global competition.

  By Global Times | 2024/8/5 0:55:58

• 

  Paris Summer Olympics 2024 Medal Count: Live Updates

Paris 2024 Olympic Medal Table

OrderNOCs

G

S

B

1People's Republic of China

22191455

2United States of America

21302879

3France

13161948

4Australia

1312833

5Great Britain

12131742

6Republic of Korea

118726

7Japan

1051126

8Italy

910625

9Germany

85417

10Netherlands

75618

11Canada

54817

12New Zealand

3519

13Hungar

POWERE

A commendation ceremony today for all the 🇨🇳Chinese athletes who competed in Paris Olympics!

Pan Zhanle🏊‍♂️, Zheng Qinwen🎾, Quan Hongchan🥇, Ma Long🏓, Zhang Yufei🏊‍♀️, Li Wenwen🏋️‍♀️ ... they all shook hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping!

So proud of all these ambitious &… pic.twitter.com/e9ns0NDqGg

— Li Jingjing 李菁菁 (@Jingjing_Li) August 20, 2024

Promising high-rise residential outlook

 

Upward trend due to the strong cost push elements

Khong: The market is still seeing a significant influx of new high-rise units.

THE high-rise residential property market is showing promising signs of growth, despite the influx of new units and prevailing oversupply situation.

Given the land scarcity in the city and its rising construction costs, Savills Malaysia Sdn Bhd group managing director Datuk Paul Khong says high-rise properties will continue to move upwards due to the strong “cost push” elements.

New builds will be more costly to produce and hence, its higher pricing. Rentals will be affected as it is also a function of the capital values of the new units,” he tells Starbizweek.

However, Khong says demand will continue to increase as more urban migrants seek employment opportunities in urban areas.

“Rentals will continue to see strong demand (as many cannot afford to buy and will continue to rent) as they will still need a place to stay in the Klang Valley.

“We are seeing young professionals, expatriates and small families now favouring high-rise living due to affordability factors plus convenience, security and its amenities.”

Khong adds that retirees are also choosing high-rise properties over landed ones for similar reasons.

“Additionally, there is less physical maintenance required for a smaller place,” he says.

“The market is still seeing a significant influx of new high-rise units, but the challenge lies in balancing new supply against an oversupply situation to avoid negative factors on both capital values and rental yields,” Khong adds.

According to Knight Frank Malaysia in its Real Estate Highlights report for the first half of 2024, the high-end, high-rise residential segment in the Klang Valley is currently experiencing significant growth in market activity.

“This upward trend is highlighted by rising sales volumes and an increase in the number of newly launched projects.

“Over the past six months, there has been a concentration of developments in the KL City Centre, reflecting a shift towards investment portfolios, especially with the introduction of return on investment rental programmes.”

Knight Frank adds that the market’s momentum is further bolstered by government initiatives aligned with the Madani economic framework.

Khong says he expects demand for prime areas to pick up well, such as the KLCC and

Trx-bukit Bintang areas, which caters primarily to high-income earners and foreign expatriates.

“Many properties in the Golden Triangle area have been converted to short-term stay units targeting tourists for lucrative rental returns.”

Khong adds that high-rise projects in well-connected areas are also expected to see stronger value appreciation and higher rental returns, in particular properties near transit-oriented development zones, especially near new MRT and LRT expansion lines.

“Established residential areas like Damansara Heights and Bangsar should also continue to perform into the rest of 2024,” he says.

Meanwhile, down south in Johor, veteran property analyst Samuel Tan says the high-rise residential sector will perform better in the next couple of years, especially those that are easily accessible to the two causeways and near the Johor Baru Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS).

“Reasonably priced highrise apartments away from the centralised location but within established localities, will perform better moving forward.

“This is because landed residential properties are getting very expensive and beyond reach for most first timers.”

Additionally, Tan says many overhang units that accumulated during the Covid-19 period have been cleared.

“The supply-demand dynamic is not skewed towards the buyer’s market anymore. Having said that, we also noticed that developers are “rushing” in to capture the upturn.

“We opine that it is advisable for developers to read the market carefully and buyers also need to do their homework, before plunging in.”

Knight Frank meanwhile says the highrise residential sector in Johor Baru has seen improvements, marked by the launches of new projects that have attracted significant interest.

“Purchase inquiries have been increasing, particularly for high-rise developments near the RTS link project.

“Moving forward, we expect the projects located near the city centre to maintain their upward trajectory, while others are still experiencing positive effects from the ripple.”

Improving rentals

Khong says rentals have been recovering post Covid-19, especially in areas such as in Bangsar, Mont’kiara, Bandar Sunway and Shah Alam (especially the Glenmarie area).

“Notably, Bangsar and Bandar Sunway have surpassed their pre-covid levels, but we see rental tension with the increasing new completions in Petaling Jaya and Subang Jaya.

“It is a tenant’s market and they are spoilt for choices, given the many new offerings with more modern lifestyle concepts, better locations and more attractive amenities moving forward.”

Khong says KLCC still remains on the recovery path.

“We hope the current relaxation of the Malaysia My Second Home programme will enhance the government’s efforts to move Kuala Lumpur city as a world-class business and entertainment hub, attracting more foreign investors and tourists.”

Khong says there are still strong fundamentals that are driving positive rental performance in high-rise residential properties.

“This is despite higher cost-of-living due to the increased service tax now, diesel subsidy rationalisation and the expected RON95 subsidy changes, as urbanisation trends, strong demographics, population growth and the constant migration of the younger generation to urban areas will support this rental demand.

“Upcoming infrastructure projects such as the MRT and LRT expansions are set to enhance the connectivity and desirability to many of such locations. This continues the strong and positive trend in the rental market moving strongly forward.”

Similarly, Tan says he has witnessed improving rental trends for high-rise properties in Johor.

“We do not have official data for rental transactions. However, we know that rentals have been increasing since the reopening of borders in the second quarter of 2022.

“The increase over the past two years was easily 20% to 25% per annum for serviced apartments in the Johor Baru city centre and Iskandar Puteri area.”

Tan says the demand was mainly from Malaysians working in Singapore initially.

“Subsequently, more Airbnb operators also leased these high-rise units when tourists started streaming in.

“More Singaporeans are also renting in Johor Baru to stretch their dollars, especially those who can work from home.”

Source link 

Related posts:

Property market and affordability

• 

  Property market and affordability

    Affordability goes hand in hand with income. Affordability goes hand in hand with income. THE older wisdom believes that a market cycle ty...

Property market and affordability

 

Affordability goes hand in hand with income.

Affordability goes hand in hand with income.

THE older wisdom believes that a market cycle typically lasts about 10 years. While this is not set in stone and social media has somewhat disrupted this timeframe, one sector that seems to have moved in tandem with this timeline is the property sector.

The Malaysian property market has been on a downtrend for close to a decade. Take the KL Property Index (KLPRP). It has not revisited its peak in 2024. From a high of 1,524 on Aug 18, 2014, it fell to a low of 495 on March 23, 2020, during the Covid-19 lockdowns.

However, this past year, the KLPRP has performed extraordinarily, rebounding to 1,132 as at July 31, 2024, delivering a yearto-date return of 31%.

Is this the sign that our property market is truly on the path to recovery? It the worst over for the sector which has been in the doldrums for over a decade?

The peak of the property market was marked with the rollout of the popular “Developer Interest Bearing Scheme”.

This scheme essentially allows purchasers of property to pay only the initial deposit, with the developer absorbing the interest throughout the construction period until vacant possession.

This eased the entry for many first-time homebuyers who were previously deterred by deposit and interest repayment obligations.

However, as the market overheated, the government abolished the scheme. Nonetheless, various modified schemes continue to exist in the market.

We started witnessing many businesses diversified into property development.

Firefighting equipment manufacturers, confectionery makers and even textile companies entered the sector and became property developers overnight.

This led to a surge in the supply of properties. We must remember, in the past, properties were built sideways.

With advancements in technology and new regulations such as higher plot ratios, properties started being built upwards, unlocking a significant number of units and pushing up land costs.

There was also the mushrooming of “property gurus” who conducted seminars on property investment, which spurred speculations further.

The worst were those that propagate “compressed loans”, where buyers exploited a loophole in the banking system by submitting multiple loan applications at the same time to various banks for several properties.

This allowed them to borrow loans for several properties as the system then was not able to catch these simultaneous submissions.

All was well and good when the market was hot, as buyers could do a quick flip.

But when the market turned, many of these buyers could neither find buyers nor rent out the properties. Without the financial ability to service multiple loans at the same time, their properties were auctioned by the banks.

This led to a huge number of property units being put on the auction market. The situation was further exacerbated when the pandemic hit, causing many people to lose their income.

At one point, there were more than 200 listed companies on Bursa Malaysia involved in property development. As the supply of unsold units far outpaced demand, there was a compression in margins and write downs for many listed developers.

Sales were affected and many projects which were launched could barely achieve 50% of the sales threshold.

The situation was further complicated by delayed project completions, leading to liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) claims piling up.

The verdict of Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar [2020] 1 MLJ 281 led to many homebuyers filing suits against property developers, with the estimated claims reaching Rm48mil due to the extension of time (EOT) granted between 2016 and 2020.

The property market was indeed plagued with many challenges to a point where a veteran industry leader publicly commented that “the golden age of property sector is gone”.

As with all cycles, there is always a turning point. It seemed from the start of 2024, green shoots appeared for the property sector.

Firstly, the catalyst came when the government unveiled the potential of setting up a special economic zone for Singapore and Johor.

Secondly, the inflow of data centre investments drove up land transactions, with many property developers which had landbanks in Johor starting to cash out at significant premiums to their entry prices.

The average transaction price of agriculture land suited for the data centres was in the range of RM60 per sq ft.

Most of these land were less than RM30 per sq ft a year ago. This led to investors paying attention to the market down south.

Furthermore, banks’ appetite for end-financing picked up in the past two years, with an increase in both loan application submissions and approvals.

The latest Federal Court decision in Obata-ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd and two other appeals, which discussed the Ang Ming Lee case, stated the ruling on the EOT shall only apply prospectively and not retrospectively.

This was the cherry on the icing, allowing many developers faced by mounting LAD claims to breathe a sigh of relief. It is quite clear that 2024 is an important year for property developers, with the sector seemingly to be firing on all cylinders.

Yet, the Khazanah Research Institute director in a webinar last week, highlighted that our housing market is consistently unaffordable and was against offering “affordable financing” with long tenures.

She proposed for the migration from the current sell-then-build model to the buildand-sell model like other developed countries.

In my view, this policy idea is regressive in nature and not suitable to the current economic structure of Malaysia.

It is too shallow as the crux of the problem of property ownership in our country is due to low wage growth rather than high property price.

Affordability goes hand in hand with income. If the people’s incomes do not increase, affordability will always be a problem, regardless of whether there is affordable financing or otherwise.

Similarly, the migration to build-and-sell will not help the property market pricing in any way apart from reducing abandoned housing or “Project Sakit”.

The repercussion of a migration in model is far-reaching.

While I do agree that this would weed out many incompetent property developers and offer better protection to homebuyers, the downside would be the impact on the supply of property to the market and risk of financially strong property developers cornering the market, leading to oligopolistic or cartel behaviour.

This would eventually drive asset prices up further due to supply scarcity.

At the end of the day, I believe the rationale for property ownership differs from one person to another.

Some believe that real estate is among the safest and most reliable asset classes for investment purposes and hedging against inflation.

Others believe that real estate has limited upside, hence renting is more practical without the long-term loan commitments affecting their lifestyle preferences. This is especially prevalent among the youth today.

My personal view is that the property sector, like any other sector, has its own cycles, and depending on which point one enters the market, there will be different outcomes.

This will shape individual perspective when it comes to property ownership.

Whether the sector remains positive in the long term depends heavily on two key factors – population growth and a burgeoning middle-income society.

By Ng zhu hann Ng zhu hann is the chief executive officer of tradeview Capital. he is also a lawyer and the author of Once upon a time in Bursa. the views expressed here are the writer’s own.

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/insight/2024/08/03/property-market-and-affordability

Related posts:

Housing affordability is an income issue, what's with the fuss?

Penang property market on the recovery path 

RCEP to boost our property market

Young adults in developed countries rent, we buy houses for good

Is real estate still a viable investment asset?

Better to buy a car or a house first?

Young buyers flock to property market

Owning a home beyond reach of most millennials (Poll

 Inside)

Do you earn enough to sustain your lifestyle?

U.S. intellectuals speak out against Asia war

 

Racism against Chinese in the USA

TOP INTELLECTUALS IN THE U.S. stood up this week to speak out for China—and demand a stop to the powerful militaristic country’s drive to start an unnecessary war in East Asia.

The White House claim this week that they did not want conflict with China is “Denial and information distortion bordering on propaganda,” said Stephen Roach, Yale University professor and former chief economist at Morgan Stanley. The untrue statement was “classic Cold War posturing”, he said in statement on Twitter on Thursday.

Others agreed. Falsely painting the Chinese as trying to take over the world is bad for everyone, writer David Rothkopf argued in a Daily Beast essay printed today. Why paint China as a threat?

“Why? Why is it such a great threat even though the country has no history of conquest beyond its region in 5,000 years of history and is far from being able or inclined to pose a direct threat of attack to the U.S.?” he asked.

Even the relentlessly hostile Financial Times printed a column by Edward Luce admitting that the current geopolitical tension in the world did not come from China, but from the U.S.

“This week, Xi Jinping went further than before in naming America as the force behind the ‘containment’, ‘encirclement’ and ‘suppression’ of China. Though his rhetoric was provocative, it was not technically wrong,” wrote Luce in a column on Wednesday. Luce, like most FT writers, normally takes a very hostile line against China.

INTELLIGENCE CHIEF WARNING

On the other side, America’s Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines tried to justify the U.S. stance. She said the U.S. was working against China because the giant country is “increasingly challenging the United States economically, technologically, politically, and militarily around the world”.

She said the goal of the Chinese was to “continue efforts to achieve [President] Xi’s vision of making China the preeminent power in East Asia and a major power on the world stage.”

But Rothkopf responded to Haines’ statement by stating the obvious: so? What else would anyone expect?

“Is there something inherently wrong or dangerous about China seeking to challenge the United States economically, technologically, or politically? Isn’t that what all nations do? Don’t we believe in the inherent superiority of our system? Don’t we believe in the benefits of competition? (I thought that was fundamental to America’s national identity and values.)”

He further pointed out that “all nations seek to have sufficient power that they cannot be bullied by global hegemons (and let’s be realistic, we’re the only global hegemon in this conversation at the moment)”.

In other words, China is taking a tougher stance because the strutting, might-is-right stance that the U.S. takes, has forced it to do so.

COLD WAR

While a belligerent U.S. tries to recreate the old script of the Cold War against Russia, there’s a marked difference between the Soviets and the Chinese, Edward Luce pointed out: “China is not exporting revolution.”

The U.S. justified its hostility to the Soviet Union by saying it was spreading communism, but the Chinese are not spreading their system anywhere.

PUBLIC AGREEMENT

There was a strong outbreak of voices on social media agreeing with these points.

Nobody can believe the White House claim that they are not trying to create war, numerous voices said. “We just send warships and war planes to China’s territorial waters in the friendliest of ways,” was the sarcastic response of Alfonso Araujo.

Stephen Roach’s claim that the White House position was “bordering on propaganda” was “too kind”, said Brenda Teese.

“Biden talks about competition, but what he does is zero-sum and hostile behavior,” said Spencer Du. “China has not yet intended to take the U.S. as its enemy but has begun to take the actions of the U.S. as hostile.”

“If the U.S. cannot acknowledge the legitimacy of the P.R.C. to rule China, then the U.S. is essentially agitating for a war,” said Professor Gregory Herczeg this morning.

BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW

The U.S. political response was markedly different from the point of view of ordinary people and the business community.

There are more than 70,000 U.S. companies operating in China, David Rothkopf pointed out. The two powerful nations are already strongly intertwined in a positive way – so why ruin this?

The justification for hostility against China is crude allegations that the country “destroyed” Hong Kong and “genocided” the Uyghur population of Xinjiang, but neither narrative remotely reflects the more complex reality. Now the U.S. is making use of Taiwan.

TAIWAN JUST AN EXCUSE

“The problem with the current apparent decision to treat China as an enemy and an existential threat is that it can lead to distorted views on certain issues—such as Taiwan,” Rothkopf says.

“Let’s be real for a moment. What really bothers us about China’s rise is that they are quite open about the fact that they want to challenge our influence in the world. We want to be No. 1. We don’t like being challenged,” he wrote.

Luce agreed that America actively looks for excuses to create negativity. “If Taiwan did not exist, would the U.S. and China still be at loggerheads? My hunch is yes,” he wrote.

The American administration is taking an unnecessarily harsh stance against China’s peaceful rise in its neighborhood, Rothkopf argued. “But isn’t it reasonable for China to want such influence?” he asked.

“After all, throughout world history until the start of the industrial revolution, China had the world’s largest economy and it is now resuming that role.”

Source link 

Philippine fishermen and environmental groups oppose US military bases in the Philippines, warning against 'proxy war' dangers

Philippine fishermen and environmental groups gathered in Quezon City for a forum to express their concerns about the risks of the Philippines becoming embroiled in a "proxy war" as a result of US military bases in the country. The gathering coincided with reports of joint maritime exercises between the Philippines ...

Related posts:

Philippine Group Protests US-Filipino War Games!