Major fossil fuel producers cause rift among G20
RT | July 23, 2023
Saudi Arabia and Russia have prevented a consensus from emerging among the Group of 20 major economies on a road map to phase down the share of fossil fuels in the global energy mix, Reuters has reported.
The G20 energy transition ministers held a four-day summit that ended on Saturday in the Indian state of Goa where they discussed ways to achieve global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.
The summit ended without a consensus because major fossil fuel producers, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, opposed a proposal to triple G20 countries’ renewable energy capacity by 2030, Reuters reported, citing its sources.
China, the world’s largest consumer of energy, as well as coal exporters South Africa and Indonesia, also opposed the plan, the agency added. India, the world’s most populous country and which currently generates 75% of its total power from coal, reportedly took a neutral stance on the issue.
As a result of the disagreements, the ministers issued an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique. A joint communique is issued when complete agreement among members on all issues is achieved.
According to the statement, “different national circumstances” drove “some members” to support a phase-down of unabated fossil fuels, while “others had different views” and suggested that “abatement and removal technologies” would address environmental concerns associated with the use of fossil fuels.
“Fossil fuels currently continue to play a significant role in the global energy mix, eradication of energy poverty, and in meeting the growing energy demand,” reads the statement.
The document mentioned a number of technologies for countries to use “as per national priorities,” such as carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS), a technology that can capture and make effective use of the high concentrations of CO₂ emitted by industrial activities.
The G20 comprises 19 nations and the European Union. The group’s aim is to address major issues related to the global economy, such as international financial stability and climate change. Together, the G20 member countries account for over three-quarters of both gross domestic product and global emissions.
‘Most of the world is tired of war’ – PM Orbán touts Hungary and Latin America’s pro-peace stance at EU-CELAC summit
Hungary has found allies outside of Europe for its pro-peace position
BY JOHN CODY – REMIX NEWS – JULY 18, 2023
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán took to Facebook on Tuesday to proclaim that Hungary and Latin America both have a pro-peace stance regarding the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and want the war to end as soon as possible.
“Most of the world is tired of war. Today, we argued for an immediate ceasefire and peace, and this time the leaders of Latin America joined us!” wrote Orbán on Facebook following the meeting of the leaders of the European Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (EU-CELAC) summit in Brussels.
Although Orbán’s pro-peace stance is a minority position in Europe, he has found broad support from nations with a similar outlook toward the war elsewhere in the world, including India, China, and countries in Latin America. China, for example, has put forward a peace plan that Hungary has backed.
Within Latin America, there are a number of nations directly aligned with Russia, including Venezuela and Cuba, but more broadly speaking, there are many more nations skeptical of the Western war effort in Ukraine that have called for an immediate ceasefire. Countries like Brazil and Mexico have also refused to back sanctions against Russia, arguing it is not in their economic interest. … Full article
What’s the problem regarding radioactive water discharge from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant? Part 2
A delegation of South Korean scientists visits the NPP
By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 12.07.2023
The disputable situation surrounding the safety of discharging water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which the author discussed in Part 1, prompted a team of 21 South Korean experts to visit Japan from May 21 to 26 to inspect the plant and the treatment of radioactively contaminated water that Japan plans to begin discharging into the ocean in the near future because the tanks are full.
Many Koreans are concerned about this because they believe the waters are still contaminated and will have a negative impact on the environment and health of the population of the area, especially South Korea. A presidential administration official stated that Seoul feels a real inspection of the nuclear disaster by South Korean experts is required in light of the rapprochement between Seoul and Tokyo on May 9, 2023. He reminded that the inspection of contaminated water quality is carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) specialists. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the treatment facilities and their operational capabilities need to be independently verified. On the same day, South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, visiting Europe at the time, met with IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi and noted the need for South Korean specialists and research organizations to be constantly involved in the process of monitoring the composition of contaminated water.
The idea was also supported in Washington. On May 12, Philip Goldberg, US Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, said that South Korea and Japan should exercise “patience and diplomatic skill.”
The delegation consisted of 19 experts from the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, one expert from the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology and its head, South Korea’s Nuclear Safety and Security Commission Chairperson Yoo Guk-hee. Indeed, it was a serious team, but the preparation for the visit was fraught with a number of difficulties.
On the one hand, the parties defined the goals of the trip differently. The visit, the Foreign Ministry anticipated, would provide “opportunity to conduct a multilayered review and evaluation” of the water’s safety independently of the IAEA’s monitoring team. However, Japanese Industry Minister Yasutoshi Nishimura stated that the inspection is intended to “help deepen understanding” about the safety of the release, not to evaluate or certify its safety.
On May 17, South Korea and Japan held further consultations at the working level, but could not elaborate on the details of the upcoming inspection, despite many hours of talks.
On the other hand, the question arose as to whose representatives would go there. On May 12, Park Ku-yeon, the first deputy chief of the Office for Government Policy Coordination, stated that “the inspection team will be composed of top-notch experts in safety regulations,” and “the purpose of inspection activities is to provide an overall review of the safety of the water discharge into the ocean.”
But on May 19, Park Ku-yeon said that in addition to government experts, a separate group of about 10 civilian experts would be formed by Yoo Guk-hee to review and support the inspection team.
As a result, the government formed an advisory group of 10 civilian experts, some of whom strongly raised questions about the safety of radioactive water and called for a thorough review. But members of the advisory group were not included in the on-site inspection team.
This raised the question of objectivity, as the arguments of the critics were worth considering:
- Members of the expert group serve in government agencies; it may be difficult for them to express an opinion different from the government which supports Japan.
- Japan will not allow experts to take radioactive water samples at the power plant site and will not accept the results of the safety assessment of the Korean inspection team, a clear indication that Japan does not want a full objective inspection.
- Japan does not allow Korean journalists to accompany the inspection team. The lack of transparency and openness may cause concern.
However, the Yoon administration and the ruling People Power Party claimed that there is no need for the public to be alarmed because Japan will permit an additional inspection if a problem is discovered at the facility and the Korean delegation will have the chance to examine and assess the advanced cleaning system developed at the Fukushima plant.
On the third hand, the democratic opposition started its resistance right away. On May 10, opposition leader Lee Jae-myung called on the government to reconsider its plan to send an inspection team “that has no power to conduct a substantial and thorough inspection and verification,” saying that the visit could end up approving the planned discharge of contaminated water from the damaged plant. “It appears the government is trying to be a volunteer helper for Japan’s plan to dump contaminated water from the nuclear power plant into the ocean.”
On May 13, the Democratic Party called on the government to withdraw its plan to send an inspection team to Japan, saying it would only justify Japan’s plan. The Democrats pointed out that the Japanese government has no plans to allow the Seoul delegation to verify the safety of the discharge and will proceed with the plan in July, regardless of the team’s actions. This means that the inspection team is just a formality.
On May 21, the experts arrived in Japan. On May 22 they met with the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation (TEPCO), the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), presenting them with a list of facilities they want to inspect. Before the meeting, Yoo Guk-hee noted that the experts will check with their own eyes the K4 tanks intended for storing and measuring the radioactive substance and will ask the Japanese authorities for the necessary data. Yoo also promised to study the ALPS treatment system, and assess whether the treated water is safe enough to discharge into the sea.
In brief, the purification process is as follows: contaminated water goes through the procedure of preliminary purification from suspended solids and then enters the ALPS unit, which removes radionuclides except tritium. Then its samples are evaluated, and if they meet the established safety parameters, the water is diluted with pure seawater in a separate facility to reduce the concentration of tritium. Later, it is supposed to be discharged into the ocean.
On May 23-24, experts inspected the damaged Fukushima Daiichi NPP. As Yoo Guk-hee noted, the main focus was on the radioactive water storage tanks and treatment system.
On May 23, the ALPS equipment, the central control room, the K4 tank for measuring water concentration before discharge, and the transportation equipment were inspected.
On May 24, the experts inspected the first power unit of the plant, including the radiological analysis laboratory. Additionally, by comparing the concentration of water before and after treatment, the experts evaluated the effectiveness of the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS).
The team visited the nuclide analysis facility and inspected the seawater dilution system and discharge facilities, including the capacity of the dilution pumps and how they functioned. The experts took a close look at the shut-off valves that would be triggered if the water contamination level exceeded the norm.
Additionally, Tokyo gave them reports from IAEA officials it had invited to observe the procedure and data it had collected on water control.
After the inspection, Yoo told reporters that “we examined all the facilities we wanted to see … but we need to engage in additional analysis of their function and role.” Although the team was not able to collect water samples on their own, they analyzed those previously collected by the IAEA.
When asked whether the South Korean government would release its security assessment before the IAEA releases its final report, Yoo declined to comment.
On May 25, the delegation held consultations with Japanese counterparts, and Yoo Guk-hee reported that the commission had completed its task by requesting additional data to be sent from Japan and analyzed. Only then will the final report be made public.
On May 26, the group returned home. The opposition and some civil society organizations criticized the visit, calling it “government-led tourism,” saying that the Yoon Seok-yeol government was simply following Japan’s lead and risking the health of Koreans. South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin rejected such criticism, saying that experts were carefully examining the sites, resolving all concerns with the Japanese authorities, and obtaining scientific data. “It is not right to devalue the work of our team that is working hard (in Japan).”
On May 30, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo asked the group of experts to present the results of their inspection transparently and comprehensively. On May 31, the group held a press conference to announce the main results of the visit.
The specialists spoke in detail about TEPCO’s procedure for cleaning and testing radiation-contaminated water, as well as the sites visited as part of the inspection. They also learned the procedures to stop water discharge in case of emergency and the process of maintaining the machinery used in water treatment. The unique cleaning technique and the equipment for assessing radiation levels received special attention.
In the process of familiarization with the water treatment facilities at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi NPP, the South Korean expert group received data from the Japanese side on the performance of the ALPS for the last four years. This includes data regarding the water’s chemical composition at the ALPS system’s input and exit, which made it possible to assess the system’s effectiveness and gauge the degree of pollution before and after treatment. The experts made sure that all major equipment was installed in accordance with current standards, and that the system for preventing leakage of contaminated water was operating normally. In particular, there are emergency valves to automatically stop water discharge in case of a sudden power and communication failure. In addition, equipment for double-checking the composition of water is in operation. However, there has not been a “yes or no” answer: significant progress has been made during the Fukushima inspection, but further analysis is needed for a more accurate conclusion.
This did not dampen the excitement, and on June 22, Hahn Pil-soo, a South Korean nuclear energy expert who formerly served as director of the IAEA’s radiation, transport and waste safety division, said that IAEA investigation reports have reliable objectivity and credibility. “The credibility of the final report is directly related to the status of the IAEA. Thus lawyers and experts are involved to ensure that not a single word is misspelled,” he said, stressing that the agency works hard to produce professional, objective and reliable results.
On June 26, Park Ku-yeon said that there is no alternative to Japan’s decision to release contaminated water from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant because there is no other way to dispose the water. In the mid-2010s, there were extremely complex discussions in Japan, with various options for water disposal (solidifying water in concrete or storing water in massive tanks), but “the current water discharge method was finalized as the most realistic alternative when scientific precedents and safety were fully taken into account.” Therefore, the IAEA approved the method to be implemented, taking into account its safety and based on scientific data.
Park Koo-yeon noted that the NRA would begin trial operation of the water dilution and pumping units on June 28.
On June 27, after a month of his group’s return, Yoo Guk-hee, reported that South Korea is in the final stages of analysis: “We have been scientifically and technologically reviewing Japan’s plan based on the results of the on-site inspection and additional data obtained afterward.” In addition, Yoo said six types of radionuclides have been detected in the water stored in the tanks at concentrations in excess of acceptable limits, even after treatment with ALPS, but most cases occurred before 2019, so “this is the aspect of radionuclide that we need to closely examine.”
The final report will eventually be published in early July. However, in a politicized environment, its meaning becomes a matter of trust, particularly because the opposition prematurely declared the commission’s findings invalid and launched a loud campaign, which the author will discuss in the section after this one.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, is a leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
China hits back at entire Western industries with rare-earth elements restrictions
By Drago Bosnic | July 12, 2023
It seems that China has finally had enough of foreign attempts to slow down or effectively stop its technological advances. The Asian giant is now making very concrete moves against the United States and its numerous vassals and satellite states, targeting their own high-tech industries, including their massive Military Industrial Complex (MIC). The troubled Biden administration (but also the previous one) has started an essentially suicidal economic confrontation with Beijing, particularly against its high-tech sector, by far the fastest growing in the world. This includes a US attack on Chinese semiconductor advances.
In response, last week Beijing decided to impose export restrictions on two rare-earth elements it produces in abundance (up to 95% of global production, depending on the source) – gallium and germanium. The two metals are heavily imported by the countries of the political West and its satellites, particularly for semiconductor production. It also seems that China’s timing for this was perfect, as it greatly strengthened its negotiating position, particularly as it came mere days before US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visited China last week. In other words, Beijing is finally capitalizing on its absolute dominance in rare-earth mining and refining.
As such capacities are sorely lacking in the political West, China believes that this move would finally open up talks and “help convince” the US that any future restrictions on microchip and semiconductor development in China will be equally (if not more) painful for the political West. On July 7, The Wall Street Journal reported that Yellen and the Chinese Premier Li Qiang discussed economic competition that “would benefit both countries” and precisely this was almost certainly one of the hotly debated topics during closed doors talks. The US has a very clear and easy choice in this regard. Unfortunately, it’s extremely likely to choose confrontation once again.
China’s pushback is already yielding results, as the global prices of the aforementioned rare-earth elements have already spiked and continue to grow. Gallium soared 27% last week, traders who spoke with Bloomberg complained, adding that the gallium market, although well-supplied for the time being, will eventually be hit by export controls starting next month, causing a flurry of panic buying as traders are scrambling to purchase the metal in greater quantities than ever. On July 7, Fastmarkets data showed Gallium prices soared $43 on the week to $326 a kilogram. As of this writing, it has soared to at least $368 and is projected to grow further in August and beyond.
Starting on August 1, exporters must apply for special licenses with the Chinese Ministry of Commerce to ship gallium and germanium abroad. This will greatly impact Washington DC, as data from the US Geological Survey shows that the belligerent thalassocracy imported an estimated 14,000 kilograms of germanium in 2022 while consuming approximately 30,000. In that same year, imports of gallium were around 12,000 kilograms, while consumption was an estimated 18,000 kilograms. It can only be expected that the US will try to stockpile these metals and try to diversify imports, while there are some indications that the troubled Biden administration might move to increase domestic mining and refining of rare-earth elements.
However, this will require time and effort that will not prevent price spikes that are already affecting entire industries across the political West. According to Bernard Dahdah, an analyst at Natixis, the move by China is far from being the “nuclear option that it could have chosen”, but it’s the first “warning shot”, emphasizing that “China does control other metals through which it can inflict more severe consequences”. And this is certainly true. China’s dominance in rare-earth elements extraction and production is well known and while Beijing never intended to “weaponize” this, it is now being forced to do so as the US and its vassals and satellite states are targeting China’s economic growth and technological innovations.
In the meantime, the Pentagon seems to be in a quiet panic. On July 7, it announced that it’s invoking the Defense Production Act to boost the domestic mining and processing capacity of the two metals. This is because gallium is one of the key elements used in the production of advanced AESA (active electronically scanned array) radars used in modern fighter jets, air defense systems, ground and sea-based ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) equipment, etc. These radars heavily depend on the foundational materials of gallium arsenide (GaAs) and gallium nitride (GaN), with US MIC giants such as RTX (formerly Raytheon) and Northrop Grumman on the brink of launching new systems that primarily rely on GaN.
Such systems were supposed to provide superior performance over the older GaAs-based AESA radars and this advanced technology has already started being implemented into the radars for F/A-18E/F “Super Hornet” carrier-based fighters, as well as the deeply troubled F-35 stealth fighter jets. This will affect not only Washington DC, but also its vassals and satellite states that are taking part in US aggression in the Asia-Pacific, where they aim to “contain” China and curb its growth and development. The US (and now also the EU) routinely sends its fighter jets, strategic bombers and warships to the South and East China Seas, deliberately provoking the Asian giant.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Five Reasons Why India Could Mediate A Russian-Ukrainian Ceasefire
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JULY 11, 2023
There’s a growing consensus that the failure of Kiev’s NATO–backed counteroffensive and Moscow’s edge over NATO in their “race of logistics”/”war of attrition” will result in the resumption of Russian-Ukrainian talks in some form by the end of the year as was explained here. This will at the very least be aimed at reaching a ceasefire, but Zelensky is prohibited by the Rada from conducting talks with Russia, ergo the need for a mediator. Here are five reasons why India could play this role:
———-
1. The US Wants To “De-Sinify” The Peace Process
China has the diplomatic power to implement its plan for freezing the NATO-Russian proxy war, but only if the US allows Kiev to participate in talks under its aegis, which is unlikely to be approved. There’s no way that Washington would let its systemic rival go down in history as the country that helped end the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II, with it instead preferring to “de-Sinify” the peace process by having someone else play this role in order to deprive Beijing of that diplomatic victory.
2. Russia Might Not Trust Turkiye To Mediate Again
Turkish President Erdogan’s violation of the Azovstal deal that he reached last year with his Russian counterpart might have irreparably damaged trust between them to the point where President Putin no longer feels comfortable with Turkiye mediating between it and Kiev ever again. In that case and considering the seeming inevitability of talks resuming in some form by year’s end, then it therefore follows that Russia, Ukraine, and the US would have to agree on someone else to mediate in its place.
3. India Is Much More Appealing Than South Africa
Apart from South Africa, India is the only major country that’s consistently abstained from all anti–Russian UNGA Resolutions, thus proving its neutrality towards the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine. Unlike Pretoria, however, Delhi isn’t a party to the ICC and its ties with Moscow are no longer criticized by Washington. These two factors combine to make India much more appealing than South Africa as Turkiye’s possible replacement for mediating between Russia and US-controlled Ukraine.
4. Russia & The US Have Excellent Relations With India
The decades-long Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership has impressively weathered unprecedented Western pressure upon it over the last sixteen and a half months while the Indian-US Strategic Partnership was recently strengthened without doing so at the expense of Moscow’s interests. Each of those two Great Powers have natural interests in further elevating India’s rapidly rising role in global affairs, hence why they could prospectively agree on having it mediate Russian-Ukrainian ceasefire talks.
5. The Optics Of Indian Mediation Are Acceptable To All
Russia and the US are competing for hearts and minds across the Global South so each would gain from the optics of them requesting the “Voice of the Global South” to mediate. Both would also receive supplementary benefits by doing so too: Russia wouldn’t have to worry about whatever compromises it might make being spun for divide-and-rule purposes as “Chinese-dictated”, while the US can present India’s prestigious diplomatic role as proof that the “Asian Century” doesn’t mean a “Chinese Century”.
———-
State Department spokesman Matt Miller confirmed on Monday that “we welcome a role that India or any other country could play” in stopping this conflict, which signaled that it could replace Turkiye if Russia no longer regards the latter as a trusted mediator. Should Delhi be interested, then it should begin talks with both about this right away because time is of the essence as other players vie for the chance to go down in history for helping end the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II.
NATO is ‘malicious poison’ – former Australian PM
RT | July 10, 2023
NATO has no place in Asia and should stick to its original focus, that is the security of the Transatlantic region, former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating has argued. The Labour politician, who served in office from 1991 to 1996, also warned against attempts to “circumscribe” China.
In his statement published on Sunday, Keating appeared to refer to a recent report in Politico, which claimed French President Emmanuel Macron had blocked NATO’s plans to establish a liaison office in Japan.
The former premier lauded the French head of state for “doing the world a service” by apparently emphasizing the military bloc’s focus on Europe and the Atlantic.
According to Keating, the alliance’s very existence past the end of the Cold War “has already denied peaceful unity to the broader Europe.”
Exporting such “malicious poison to Asia would be akin to Asia welcoming the plague upon itself,” he insisted. The former prime minister warned that NATO’s presence on the continent would negate most of the region’s recent advances.
Keating went on to describe NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg as the “supreme fool” on the international stage who is conducting himself like an “American agent.”
He cited a comment Stoltenberg made back in February when he called for the West not to repeat the “mistake” it had made with regard to Russia, suggesting it should work to contain China.
The former Australian leader noted that the NATO chief conveniently ignored the fact that “China represents twenty per cent of humanity and now possesses the largest economy in the world.” He added that Beijing, unlike Washington, “has no record of attacking other states.”
Over the weekend, Politico cited an anonymous Elysee Palace official who claimed that Paris is against NATO expansion beyond the North Atlantic. “NATO means North Atlantic Treaty Organization,” the French presidential staffer reportedly emphasized.
Back in May, the Japanese ambassador to the US, Koji Tomita, revealed that his country was working toward opening a NATO liaison office in Tokyo, which would become the bloc’s first in Asia. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida confirmed the plans to Japanese lawmakers, noting that Tokyo did not intend to join the US-led organization.
Commenting on the news, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning advised NATO against “extending its geopolitical reach.” The diplomat pointed out that the “Asia-Pacific does not welcome bloc confrontation or military blocs.”
Europe Says No to China Decoupling
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 06.07.2023
Following active US diplomacy over the past few years, Europe seems to have now decided to say no to the US geopolitics of “decoupling” from China. This is nothing short of a major diplomatic blow for the US, although this blow has not received as much attention in the mainstream Western media due to its overt focus on events related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The recent visit of Chinese Premier Li Qiang to Europe, where Li not only met the German Chancellor but also addressed a conference on development financing organised by French President Macron. More than that, the fact that two of the European Union’s most powerful states received and interacted with China’s number two became possible, first and foremost, because of the available space for continuing trade partnership with China. That is one key reason why the EU now favours the politics of “de-risking” rather than “de-coupling”.
While the idea of “de-risking” would literally mean reducing dependence on China – which some might see as a good sign – “de-risking” mainly means better management of trade and economic ties with China. After all, the EU sees China as an economic competitor. Therefore, devising new strategies to manage this competition makes perfect sense not only for the EU but also for China. As a leading US media outlet said in one of its reports, the EU has basically decided not to “piss China off.”
The real question is: Why is the EU, despite China’s overall pro-Russia position on Ukraine, devising a strategy that does not involve the kind of “decoupling” that the EU has effected vis-à-vis Russia in terms of energy supplies? There are several crucial reasons for the ongoing strategic rethinking in the EU vis-à-vis China.
First of all, the EU leaders tend to believe that China itself is eager to maintain stable economic ties with the EU. As opposed to Beijing’s estranged ties with the US, China intends to maintain a healthy, although competitive, environment with the EU. Doing this is very much possible since the EU is not as deeply entangled with China in geopolitical flashpoints, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, as the US is. For the EU, therefore, continuing trade ties with China present an opportunity that should be exploited to the best possible extent, even if this continuation does not fit very well with the nature of the US-China ties.
Secondly, the EU is a 27-member bloc, which can be – in fact, it is – internally very diverse, with many EU countries following or favouring alternative policy positions. This internal divergence makes it extremely difficult for any given actor within the EU to impose its position on the bloc. This internal divergence also means that finding consensus on minimum common ground is equally difficult.
We have seen that German and French leaders have visited China in the recent past, but we have also repeatedly seen President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen taking a tougher position on China, showing how the three key EU leaders are not necessarily unanimous, making it extremely difficult for a) the US to make the bloc follow a single set of policies of “decoupling”, and b) the EU to devise its best China policy that stresses “de-coupling” over “de-risking”.
Even though some countries advocate a tougher position, the declaration of the latest EU summit in Brussels said that “Despite their different political and economic systems, the European Union and China have a shared interest in pursuing constructive and stable relations, anchored in respect for the rules-based international order, balanced engagement and reciprocity,” adding that Europe “does not intend to decouple or to turn inwards” or adopt policies “to harm China, nor to thwart China’s economic progress and development.”
Thirdly, the EU does not see the kind of interest that “decoupling” would yield for the bloc, as a potential “decoupling” would supposedly serve the US and harm the EU. Unlike the US, the EU, as it stands, is not trying to preserve its own hegemony by engaging China in a conflict.
Therefore, the EU’s stance – and the language it has been expressed in – is markedly different from the language the US officials normally used to report on their interaction with China. For instance, after Blinken met Chinese officials in June, he said he “warned” China about its foreign policies. Earlier in February, Blinken had sent yet another warning to China about its support for Russia.
But the EU, as is evident from the latest declaration, has a position that stresses cooperation over warnings and conflict. Although the EU disagrees with various policies of China, including its Ukraine stance, there is no desire within the bloc, on the whole, to pick a conflict with Beijing and deliver yet another economic blow to the continent, which is still not fully recovered from the effects of “decoupling” from Russia. “Decoupling” from China, therefore, will “kill”, to quote Hungary’s foreign minister, “Europe’s economy.” Various assessments prove this scenario.
For instance, the Seeheimer Circle, an official think tank inside the party of the German Chancellor, released a paper last April on Germany’s relationship with China calling for a “multi-dimensional” – that is, open – policy towards the Asian giant. An “abrupt end to trade relations with China” would be “an economic disaster,” the paper argued, rejecting an “anti-China strategy.”
Therefore, while a potential “decoupling” from China might help the US regain its position of economic and financial dominance at the global level, the EU sees no glory. The EU leadership is cognizant of this fact, which is why key EU leaders are not in line with the US. Instead, various EU pronouncements show an ongoing struggle within the bloc with regard to developing a strictly European strategic vision vis-à-vis China.
Is China’s export control a precise counterattack against US, Japan and the Netherlands?
Global Times | July 6, 2023
The measures taken by China in recent years to safeguard national security and interests have often been subjected to excessive interpretation and reaction from the US and Western countries. The recent decision by China to implement export controls on gallium and germanium-related items is no exception. Although Chinese authorities have said this is a common international practice and not targeted at any specific country, certain countries have felt “targeted,” leading to a series of doubts, questions, and even accusations.
There are mainly two points that these people are criticizing about. First, they believe that China is indeed targeting specific countries by precisely counterattacking the semiconductor equipment export controls imposed by the US, Japan and the Netherlands. Does this contradict China’s consistent opposition to the abuse of export controls? Second, they claim China’s actions may violate regulations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and are detrimental to the stability of the semiconductor supply chain. Both of these points are baseless.
Whether it is a precise counterattack against the discriminatory policies of the US, Japan, and the Netherlands toward China can be left for them to ponder. It is nothing wrong to make those who have done bad things to China feel uneasy and unsettled. Gallium and germanium are key raw materials used in the production of semiconductors, missile systems, solar cells, and other high-tech products. If China exports them to these countries, but they prohibit the export of high-tech products made from these materials to China, this is clearly unfair in terms of trade. If the US uses them to produce high-end military equipment, it may even pose a threat to China’s national security. China’s export control is justifiable in terms of reason and law. It needs to be emphasized that this is entirely different from the US’ abuse of export controls.
China’s export control measures have always adhered to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination, and are committed to maintaining the security and stability of the global production and supply chains. As for whether these measures violate WTO regulations this time, it is more of a technical issue. China is recognized as an exemplary member of the WTO, in sharp contrast with the US, who has trampled on WTO rules and principles. Despite having larger reserves of germanium than China, the US has protected germanium as a defense reserve resource since 1984 and has hardly conducted any mining activities. In a sense, China’s implementation of export controls on gallium and germanium may have come a bit late. China has no reason to excessively deplete its strategic resources to meet the demands of unfriendly countries.
Currently, there is an abnormal phenomenon in the international community. The US has engaged in too many acts of undermining international rules and seems to be unconcerned about the accumulating “debts.” It is a bit taken for granted. On the other hand, China’s legitimate actions are often magnified and exaggerated by external forces. What’s even more despicable is that the US often takes the lead in pointing fingers at China, without any sense of guilt or shame. The US, which seriously lacks a moral bottom line in the international arena, enjoys morally blackmailing China, which is truly absurd. Dealing with such a US, China also needs to adapt.
To contain and suppress China, the US has imposed various export restrictions on China to an unprecedented extent, and these restrictions are escalating and expanding. There are currently no signs of any easing or cessation. It is reported that the Biden administration is considering a new round of high-tech investment bans on China. When the US treats China in this way, it should not expect China to remain silent and not fight back; that is impossible. However, China will not be as unscrupulous and rule-breaking as the US. Nevertheless, we do have a considerable toolbox to retaliate and make countries that harm China’s interests pay a price.
The US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen is about to visit China. Is China announcing the export control measures at this time to give Yellen a warning? This is overthinking. China doesn’t need to do this, but it will not postpone or cancel planned measures just because a senior US official is coming to create a favorable atmosphere. That’s how things stand. The people who are most dramatic about China’s every move are often the ones with the strongest malicious intent toward China. Their interpretations are bound to be distorted, so it is necessary to make them feel uncomfortable.
Asian NATO: another failed plan by Washington
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 05.07.2023
There are increasing reports in the world media that the US-led NATO military alliance is planning to expand into the Asia-Pacific region. The idea was originally introduced by US President Joe Biden at the East Asia Summit on October 27, 2021, where he said: “We envision an Indo-Pacific region that is open, interconnected, prosperous, resilient and secure – and we are ready to work together with each of you to achieve this.” The White House later issued a report titled “Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States” on February 11, 2022, outlining President Joe Biden’s strategy to reestablish “American leadership in the Indo-Pacific region.”
Among the remarks in the so-called “newsletter” that stood out was the declared necessity for the US to strengthen ties with Asian countries in order to tackle the “urgent” task of “competing with China.” But, according to its authors, NATO, which was formed to defend Europe against a fabricated Soviet threat, is allegedly a peace-loving alliance. In reality, it has evolved into a militarily aggressive bloc with a dominant presence in the North Atlantic region. This “peace-loving” coalition has militarized the continent to the point where war has broken out in Europe for the first time since World War II.
The question arises, do the countries of the Asia-Pacific region want to see their region also heavily militarized under the strict “guardianship” not only of the United States, but also of European “peace-loving” NATO? Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of this “peace-loving” bloc, insists on increasing the military alliance’s activities in Asia, as he stated publicly earlier this year during a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. The “peacemaker” from Europe said: “What happens in Asia matters for Europe and what happens in Europe matters for Asia, and therefore it is even more important that NATO Allies are strengthening our partnership with our Indo Pacific partners.”
According to Japan’s Nikkei newspaper, NATO will establish a liaison office in Tokyo in 2024 and use it as a center for cooperation with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. Geographically, these four countries are close to China and other states in the region. It should be emphasized that they are all strategically placed in the Asia-Pacific region and have common interests with the US and NATO, or serve them faithfully.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that their target in this situation is China. Speaking at a May 26 press briefing, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson rightly noted that NATO’s attempt to intervene in the Asia-Pacific region eastward would inevitably undermine regional peace and stability. For example, Japan intends to attend the upcoming NATO summit in Lithuania in July, where discussions on the development of the military bloc’s liaison office are expected to continue. Apparently, the Japanese leadership has already forgotten the tragic consequences of their country’s participation in World War II and the terrible consequences it had for the Japanese people.
The United States’ plan to establish a military alliance in the Asia-Pacific area, similar to NATO, will have disastrous effects. That is why this insidious scheme does not have the support of many Asian countries, which see all these maneuvers of the United States and NATO as aimed at limiting their freedom and security. In the past, the US tried to create a replica of NATO in the Persian Gulf, but failed in that endeavor. The countries of the region soon realized the instability that results from such a move and are now instead working together to bring security back to their own region. The desire of many Gulf countries to join the BRICS and build a new world without conflicts and wars at least testifies to this.
This is why the replica of NATO in Asia is also likely to fail, because no matter how much the Joe Biden administration insists on pursuing it, the idea lacks the support of many countries in the region. Asian states strongly oppose actions aimed at creating military blocs in the region and fomenting discord and conflict. “The majority of Asia-Pacific countries don’t welcome NATO’s outreach in Asia and certainly will not allow any Cold War or hot war to happen,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry stated earlier in May.
The position of most countries in the region is very clear. They oppose the emergence of military blocs in the region, do not welcome NATO expansion in Asia, do not want a repeat of bloc confrontation in Asia, and certainly will not allow a repeat of cold or hot war in Asia. If a NATO-like, US-led alliance were formed in Asia, it would put the region at risk of insecurity and possible conflict, as countries would be divided into alliances and military blocs.
But another stumbling block to the American move to create an Asian NATO is France. President Emmanuel Macron opposed the creation of the first NATO office in Asia, calling the move a “big mistake.” Macron recently made an official trip to China to strengthen bilateral ties and afterwards began to make the same argument as Beijing. Incidentally, US-led NATO activities have a clause in their charter that clearly limits the scope of the bloc to the North Atlantic. Expanding NATO beyond the North Atlantic would require the consent of all members of the alliance, and France could technically veto such a move.
Many, even members of NATO, understand why such a plan could lead to a serious escalation, with devastating economic and security consequences that would be felt negatively around the world, including Europe, a continent that has long been in deep crisis because of the United States.
Asia is famously one of the most economically developing regions in the world. This, in fact, is what the US is deathly afraid of – a new economically developed giant that poses a threat to limit US military and economic expansion. “Thinking” heads in Washington are unable to realize that China, becoming the world’s number one economy and a leading expert in technology and other major sectors, has no intention of competing with or challenging the US on a global scale.
This is where the paranoia of today’s American politicians and their unstable psyche, little adapted to the realities of the modern world, come into play. Washington and its masters are struggling to hold on to what few fragments remain of their once global hegemony, now going like the Titanic to the bottom of world politics. The US ruling elites no longer pursue their own country’s interests, bearing in mind that China is one of America’s largest trading partners, bringing them enormous benefits in various trade and industry. China’s rise as a superpower and its peaceful view of the world have had a dramatically negative impact on Washington, which has watched with apprehension as more and more countries have sought to strengthen ties with Beijing and join the BRICS.
On the security front, the world has witnessed US military adventurism and its disastrous consequences. And this at a time when China has one military mission outside its borders, and it is part of the UN peacekeeping mission in Africa. In essence, China maintains peace in an unstable part of the world, while the US provokes conflicts in crises it itself created, trying, as the proverb says, to fish in troubled waters of misfortunes and troubles of the peoples of the world.
On the technology front, more and more countries are buying from China as it quickly becomes a technological superpower. This has reduced US profits and caused Washington to bully the world against China over issues such as Huawei, Tiktok and semiconductors. In fact, this is all part of a broader US attempt to limit Chinese exports. But the world is different now than it was after World War II. The influence of the US has weakened dramatically, and many states prefer to build a new world on terms that are agreeable to them, put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
There is also some danger here as US hegemony wanes and in a desperate attempt to maintain its influence it plays dangerous games around the world. It unleashed the crisis in Ukraine and pitted Ukrainians against Russians, and now it seeks to create similar crises in other countries, such as China and North Korea, instead of following the diplomatic path and coming to realize a multipolar world. But this would be asking too much of the current American leadership, too difficult for their heads and limited thinking, accustomed to think and act only in terms of war.
Has China Just Checkmated the US by Banning Rare Earth Exports?
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 04.07.2023
China’s ban is a response to the West’s not-so-well thought out strategy of economically decoupling from the People’s Republic, Asia-Pacific consultant Thomas W. Pauken told Sputnik.
China has imposed restrictions on exporting two strategic raw materials, gallium and germanium, which are crucial for the world’s electronic chip-making industry. The US mainstream press called Beijing’s move a “second counter-measure” in the unfolding Sino-American tech confrontation, which followed the People’s Republic sanctioning America’s Micron Technology (MU) in May.
Last October, the Biden administration unveiled an unprecedented set of export controls that restricted Chinese companies from purchasing advanced chips made anywhere in the world using US technology, as well as chip-making equipment.
The US media noted at the time that Washington’s move would thwart “China’s technological ambitions,” bragging that the global semiconductor industry was “almost entirely” dependent on the US and its allies. Now American newspapers are admitting China has played “a trump card in the chip war.”
“I find it rather laughable that [the Biden regime] actually thought that they’re going to win this tech war,” Thomas W. Pauken II, the author of US vs China: From Trade War to Reciprocal Deal, and a consultant on Asia-Pacific affairs, told Sputnik. “You don’t have access to the rare earth, you don’t have access to the supply chains in order to produce these electronics – you’re totally destroyed, you’re devastated, the US knew about this. They knew how much they were reliant on the rare earths. They knew how much they had to rely on China in order to reshore their factories. And instead of trying to find ways to cooperate, they just decided to go ahead and just do these nasty, terrible attacks against China and then just somehow think they’re going to score a victory here.”
Why Didn’t Team Biden See This Coming?
The People’s Republic boasts 63% of the world’s rare earth mining, 85% of processing, and 92% of magnet production. As per the 2022 US Geological Survey, between 2017 and 2020 the United States imported a whopping 78% of its rare earth metals from China, followed by Estonia (6%), Malaysia (5%) and Japan (4%).
Back in 2019, the Asian giant warned the Trump administration about including rare earths in Beijing’s technology-export restrictions, as Washington stepped up pressure on Chinese telecom firm Huawei. Donald Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, continued to raise the stakes in a technological tit-for-tat with China by implementing the CHIPS and Science Act in August 2022 and introducing semiconductor restrictions last October. In December 2022, US policy-makers were lively discussing possible bans on TikTok, a Chinese short-form video hosting service.
Speaking to Sputnik at the time, Pauken projected that Biden’s China strategy would eventually backfire on Washington. “If the US moves forward on decoupling, they’re only hurting themselves, because most of the supply chains on the high-tech side originate from China,” the Asia-Pacific consultant warned last December.
Given that 94% of the world’s gallium and 83% of germanium is produced in China, the US may find itself in a heap of trouble in the aftermath of Beijing’s export ban, according to the expert.
“You have to realize that a lot of the electronics are produced and need these rare earths ingredients,” Pauken said. “Without these rare earth ingredients, they can do absolutely nothing. This is an absolutely devastating hit to the US markets. And obviously, if they want to continue this policy of decoupling from China, it’s only going to hit them harder and harder. I’m not too sure why these countries thought they could somehow strike against China and then not get hit back by the country. This is basic reciprocity. Reciprocity means that if you hit one country with trade barriers, the other country is going to also respond with their own type of trade barriers as well. And so these tariffs are absolutely important to American factories, and they’re going to be shut down and they’re going to have a very hard time continuing their operations.”
Biden Administration’s ‘Childish’ China Policy
Pauken criticized the Biden administration’s China policy as inconsistent and “childish”. He referred to the Chinese “spy balloon” incident which made a lot of fuss in the US but eventually turned out to be a nothingburger: “A few days ago, we discovered that the spy balloon was not even a spy balloon, it was not even monitoring the US,” the expert remarked.
To complicate matters further, Joe Biden publicly dubbed his Chinese counterpart, Chairman Xi Jinping, a “dictator” almost immediately after Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s recent trip to Beijing. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s forthcoming visit to the People’s Republic is also surrounded by controversies, given that the White House is considering an order restricting investments in China.
According to Pauken, Biden’s China experts both misunderstand and underestimate the People’s Republic’s odds of withstanding the pressure and coming out on top.
For instance, while commenting on Beijing’s ban on Micron Technology in May, the Asia-Pacific consultant drew attention to the fact that the move apparently shows that China is no longer as “dependent” on the US semiconductor industry as it used to be. “Obviously, [the Chinese] have probably set up supply chains in place and have chips made in China that are maybe not equal in quality to Micron, but close enough so that they could handle the impact of no more Micron chips coming to China,” the expert suggested at the time.
“[Biden aides are] trying to take control of the US foreign policy, which is absolutely disastrous right now,” said Pauken, commenting on the recent ban. “And these are the people who are probably working for Biden, trying to think that he’s going to win and he’s going to end up coming out a big loser and they’re going to destroy the US economy. (…) The only way to turn away from this is for countries to try to find ways to improve their trade deals with China. And if they find that they can improve their relations with China, they will likely not be hit hard by this rare earths export ban.”
Featured Video
Macgregor: We Haven’t Seen the Worst of the Iran War Yet
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
15 Saudi ‘hijackers’ were CIA agents working for US: Scholar
Press TV – April 13, 2016
Fifteen of the 9/11 “hijackers” from Saudi Arabia were CIA agents working for the United States government, which was seeking to destroy the Middle East for Israel and to double the American military budget, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003…. continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran’s Plan to Shut Down AI in the Persian Gulf
- Israel seeks ‘compensation’ from Washington over Saudi F-35 sale
- Saudi crown prince seeks dialogue with Ansarullah after Yemeni blows: Report
- Damascus rejects Saudi request for Syrian fighters to counter Yemen: Report
- South Korea says will not send troops to join terrorist US war on Iran
- Russia Just Struck the Eyes of NATO’s War Machine in Ukraine
- Russia summons UK charge d’affaires over Kiev drone support
- NATO member warns bloc seeking pretext for war with Russia
- Macgregor: We Haven’t Seen the Worst of the Iran War Yet
- ‘We are not like everyone else’ laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker
- If Americans Knew
- Debunking The Claim That Macklemore Has A “History Of Antisemitism”
- CPJ demands release of arrested Palestinian-US journalist near Bethlehem
- Robert Kraft: The Billionaire Friend of Netanyahu Pulling The Strings Behind the Macklemore/Ed Sheeran Blow Up
- Columbia Administered Fund Gives Big Money to Pro-Israel Groups
- Deportation Case of Palestinian Activist Salah Sarsour Tests First Amendment
- ‘We Will Not Forget’: Palestinians Mark 44 Years since Sabra and Shatila
- Why do we let Zionists decide what we can and can’t say?
- US welcomes Israeli, Iranian delegations to UN, but not Palestinians – Daily Update
- Biden’s Genocide Accomplices Targeted by New Accountability Campaign
- AIPAC’s Network Has Already Spent $67.2 Million to Shape the Midterm Elections
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 