Chinese General news resource thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Player 0

Junior Member
Just wanted to start a thread to collect valuable resources to keep up to date with events in China with some good analysis that the members here find reliable.

Here's the only one i've found that's both reliable and updates regularly.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Re: General news resource thread

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


President Barack Obama visited some African countries in June 2013. Later, he announced that there would be an American-African summit in August of 2014 in Washington.

For this purpose he has extended invitation letters to African leaders with the exception of leaders "who do not have good relations with the US, or those whose membership had been suspended by the AU [the African Union]."

Based on the above criteria, so far 47 Heads of State have been invited to the summit to be held in Washington DC on August 5 and 6, 2014. However, leaders from Egypt, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Madagascar have not been invited.

Some of the uninvited countries have also criticized the US for setting such criteria for invitation to the Summit. Basically, the purpose of the US-Africa leaders summit is to "widen trade, development and security ties between America and Africa."

Even if Morocco is not a member of the African Union, the North African country is also invited to the summit. This shows that America's call to the summit is not to establish relations with the continental organization-the African Union-but with countries of the continent.

Thus this summit is not to be held "under the framework of the AU, but is a summit between the US and African states." On the other hand, it seems paradoxical to invite the head of the African Union Commission, Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma (Ph.D.) to the summit.

Jay Carney, White House Spokesman, said "the president is pleased to welcome the leaders of the African continent in the capital in order to strengthen ties with one of the most dynamic regions in the world." One can argue that the US is following the example set by China for establishing such relations with Africa.

It was in 2000 that China invited African leaders to Beijing and conducted the summit. The end result of the subsequent summit was the establishment of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC.) The end result of the US-Africa summit could also be the establishment of a similar forum with Africa. At this juncture the US may develop a detailed policy towards Africa.

African leaders should make scenarios on the future relations of Africa with China and America. Particularly, they should also think of the following questions - Why the US wanted to have a summit meeting with African leaders at this time.

Does America believe that FOCAC is a successful forum so that a similar forum can strengthen the US-Africa relations, or is it to compete with China in the global arena? What will be the advantage and disadvantage of African countries in such situations?

Can such situations make Africa a battleground for the two giant countries-on economic, security, political and cultural matters? Can these competitions lead to proxy wars in Africa? How can Africa get the utmost benefit from the two big countries-on trade, investment, tourism, and technology transfer?

Is this a good opportunity for Africa to lobby both powers for getting seat at the Security Council? The above questions are not exhaustively listed, but they are indicatives to develop similar queries that would help to develop scenarios on the future relations of Africa-China and Africa-US.

The US and China are the first and the second largest economies in the world respectively. They have great influences in international relations. They are neither intimate friends nor fierce enemies to one another. Both countries have developed their own foreign policies towards Africa. Comparing and contrasting their policies is helpful for envisioning the possible relations of Africa with them.

Still both countries should learn one from the other in their policy towards Africa. In the following lines I will show the similarities and differences of the US and China's foreign policies towards Africa. This article also sheds light on the implementation of their policies in the continent.

Being permanent members of the Security Council, their decisions have global impact. Both compete and cooperate on various international issues. Historically both did not participate in the Scramble for Africa in the colonial period. In this period their relations with Africa were very minimal.

\When we see their national interests both have economic interest in Africa i.e. trade, investment and resource. Moreover, both have geo-political and diplomatic interest-to win diplomatic support from Africa in the international arena. As a result of Transatlantic Slave Trade from Africa to America, a historical link between the two peoples is more considerable than the relation between China and Africa. The presence of Afro-American people is the effect of such past links.

The volumes of trade between China-Africa and US-Africa have increased through time. African countries import from both China and the US manufactured products. China has agreed with some African countries that their products could enter China through duty free trade relations.

By the same token the US has also allowed the duty free trade from least developed countries of Africa through the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA.) Both big countries also have investments in Africa. Internationally there is agreement to provide official development assistance to least developed countries.

When their gross national product increases the amount of the assistance also increases accordingly. Hence, they have also increased their development assistance to African countries.

The US and China have interests to work together with Africa in controlling international terrorism. Since terrorism is a threat to all innocent human beings, both are committed to fighting terrorism. Relatively, the US is more affected by terrorist attacks than China. Some scholars underline that unlike the US, China is not a target to international terrorists because of her non-interference policy towards the internal affairs of other countries. Others condense the terrorist attack as if it is a competition between major religions, in which case China is free from such competition.

There are also other perspectives on the matter. Both China and the US are exercising their soft power towards Africa. In a cultural aspect, both of them use volunteers who work in other countries. Starting from 1960 the US has sent the Peace Corps to different countries.

China also launched Overseas Youth Volunteer Program in 2004. However, the cultural influence of the US seems more pronounced than the cultural influence of China in Africa. Particularly, the impact of Hollywood and CNN in Africa and the world at large is tremendous.

Moreover there are approximately a hundred sister city relationships between the US and African cities and towns. Regarding the soft power of the US, "products, schools, newspapers, journals, banks, movies, TV programs, novels, rock stars... culture, religious groups, ideas, NGOs, and other American institutions and values are liberally scattered over the global map."

Moreover, the Voice of America (VOA,) which was established in 1942 has global impact. VOA broadcasts to Africa in ten indigenous African languages and in English, Portuguese and French languages.

On the other hand, there are many differences in the policy and the implementation of the policy of China and the US towards Africa. One of the policies of America towards Africa is supporting democracy and the strengthening of democratic institutions including free, fair, and transparent elections.

However, China has no such foreign policy. China was a victim of foreign invasion in the 20th century. Because of this, China gives great value to independence and sovereignty. Thus China has the policy of adhering to independence. But we do not find such statements in the foreign policy of the US.

China has a more detailed African policy than the US. Moreover, there is a big difference in the usage of terms in their written policies towards Africa. The policy of the US towards Africa says, "supporting African economic growth and development," "supporting democracy," "strengthening of democratic institutions," "conflict prevention" and the like.

These terms show that the US is on the side of supporter, and Africa is on the side of recipient of the support i.e. not mutual support. When looking at the policy of China towards Africa we find "mutual support," "common prosperity," "reciprocity" "learning from each other," "friendship" and "seeking common development."

These terms of the Chinese policy towards Africa place Africa on equal footing than the policy of the US. So US should revise its policy towards Africa in better terms and phrases. In providing aids and loans to African leaders, the US has conditions such as- level of democracy and human rights handling. Unlike the US, China provides aid and loan without such policy conditionality. Ironically, China is even giving loans to America without policy conditionality.

Regarding this issue China is saying that she is following the non-interference policy in the internal affairs of countries. On the other hand Westerners accuse China by saying that her support "may weaken African governments' motivation to pursue democratization, good governance, and transparency reforms, and adhere to universal norms of civic and human rights and the rule of law in Africa." Others say that China is not different from many African countries in handling Human Rights issues and placing democratic governance in the country.

Unlike the US, there are frequent State visits between China and African countries' leaders that win the hearts and minds of African leaders. In visiting China, African leaders also get high standards and warm welcome of Chinese president, which has made it so different from visits in the US. According to one source, "African elites are deeply appreciative of being given the red carpet treatment whenever they turn up in Beijing." Sarcastically, a writer once said that Beijing has become the Mecca and Medina to African leaders and other senior officials.

Unlike China, the US has established military command in Africa. The United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM or AFRICOM) was established by President George Bush's formal announcement on February 6, 2007. The mission statement of AFRICOM says, "Africa Command protects and defends the national security interests of the United States by strengthening the defense capabilities of African states and regional organizations... "

From this mission statement we understand that the organization is established for the national interest of the US in Africa. However, China has no such military command and soldiers in Africa (probably with the exception of some Chinese soldiers under the UN Peace Keeping Missions in Africa.)

Unlike the US, China has established Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC,) which helps to have institutional relationships between Africa and China. Since 2000, FOCAC Ministerial Conferences and Summit are being held. Every three years Chinese and African leaders meet together to discuss various common and international issues. While China came to Africa with soft power (FOCAC,) the US came to Africa with hard power [AFRICOM.]

The US demands American values (neo-liberalism concepts of democracy, free trade... ) to be the value of other countries too. She is trying to implement it by soft or hard power. However, China was and still is not trying to spread her own Communist ideology to other countries.

In dealing with great powers, the major focuses of African countries are economic, political and security interests. The US has more security and political interests than economic interests in Africa. On the other hand, China has more of economic and political interest in Africa than security interests. The recent call of the US to African leaders to participate in the summit shows the enhancement of economic interests of the US in Africa.

Finally, it is good to mention that both big powers can learn from each other on their policies towards Africa. The US can learn from China about the friendly terms and regular high-level diplomatic contact with African leaders.

The policy of the US towards Africa focuses on the presence of democracy, good governance, human rights, resolution of conflicts, controlling of illegal transnational issues and the like. However, China lacks such policy towards Africa. In this respect China can learn from the policy of the US that may support security and smooth transition of power in Africa.

China and the US have developed their foreign policies towards Africa in order to fulfill their own national interests. In comparison with their primary national interest, fulfilling the interest of Africa is secondary to both powers.

Because of this Africa should develop her own scenarios and subsequent strategies in dealing with the US and China. Ed.'s Note: Melaku Mulualem is head of Training Department at the Ethiopian International Institute for Peace and Development (EIIPD).

The US copying China... I remember when Hillary Clinton visited some South Pacific island countries it was hailed in the media as the highest ranking of a US official to ever visit. Yeah what they left out was Hillary was following China's top leaders visiting them earlier. I'm sure Obama thinks he can put on the charm to make African leaders accept that same conditions as always.
 

A.Man

Major
People's Daily Overseas Edition: US-Japan Asia-only rule is pipe dream


Small Large Print
2014-05-03 08:10:43 People - People's Daily Overseas Edition participate Comments ( 25 ) people

May 1, the Japanese defense ministry officials announced that the Japanese Self-Defense Forces will be launching a "seize the island" exercise. Japanese media said, in an apparent effort to exercise the Diaoyu Islands against China on the issue. This is reminiscent of, U.S. President Barack Obama visit to Japan trip again and again for the day of competition islands sovereignty "cheer."

Even more disturbing is the joint statement issued after the meeting of the leaders of the U.S. and Japan. US-Japan alliance between the two countries tried to raise the status of the alliance described as "the cornerstone of regional peace and security," while the United States highly positive " Asia -called "positive significance" rebalancing "strategy and day" active pacifism "policy. On this basis, the United States and Japan openly announced that the two countries need to strengthen the alliance to make the alliance "in ensuring the Asia-Pacific to play a leading role in peace and prosperity. "

However, as a bilateral arrangement formed during the Cold War, the US-Japan alliance stressed that "zero-sum" instead of "win-win", highlighting the "contradiction" instead of "consensus." Objectives of the two countries is obvious, by striking, pressing China, seeking a long-term strategic advantage and regional dominance.

Japan-US joint statement has obvious anti-colors. In the Diaoyu Islands on the issue, the United States is very clearly the origin of the dispute, but also understand the problems caused by the intensification of the date unilaterally. Currently the Japanese side insisted on not acknowledge the existence of disputed islands, and China refused to settle disputes through peaceful means, but in a joint statement, the United States has openly claimed that the Diaoyu Islands under Japanese policy for "Japan-US Security Treaty." The United States and even falsely accuse, threatened to oppose any attempt to harm Japan on the Diaoyu Islands unilateral policy actions. In addition, Japan and the U.S. have designated air defense identification zone feature, but with ulterior motives, expressed concern over the East China Sea air defense identification zone.

Japan and the U.S. is not a party in the South China Sea sovereignty sound, but keen to find fault with the South China Sea affairs. US-Japan asked for clarification acoustic sound Sok Sok basis, obviously aimed at China's "nine out of line." China is to engage in healthy communication with ASEAN countries to discuss how the full and effective implementation of the "Declaration on Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea", on the "South China Sea Code of Conduct" to consult further enhance mutual trust and confidence of the parties to the South China Sea. China has already stated that the formulation of the guidelines is expected to have a reasonable need consensus, eliminate interference, step by step. But the U.S. and Japan are still a ton of bricks, clamor guidelines "instant on." For the Philippines, regardless of China's opposition, bent on South China Sea issue will be submitted to international arbitration tribunal repeatedly stated China's solemn stance, while working with other parties through peaceful dialogue and negotiations to resolve territorial and jurisdictional disputes, while the U.S. and Japan to support the Philippines was trumpeted by international arbitration to solve the problem.

US-Japan Joint Statement can seek temporary, but to contain China, the rule of Asia can only be pipe dream.

US-Japan unlikely to contain China. China is to achieve national rejuvenation, is a lion wakes up already, by virtue of any country can force to contain China's development. United States and Japan can not isolate China. China is an important Asia-Pacific countries, "you come or not come, I am here." More importantly, China is increasingly becoming Asia- positive factor in the development of national and regional interdependence has been increasing. Countries welcomed the United States and Japan, the same attention to China, do not want to choose sides team.

US-Japan wanted to lead the Asia-Pacific affairs, it is difficult to pre-loaded. Is the theme of today's world peace and development, based on the alliance of the Cold War thinking is moving against the tide. US-Japan disregard the interests and concerns of other countries, ignoring regional peace and security, is a blessing and not a curse region areas. Advise the United States and Japan: moral support from many, Unjust; Yanghuweihuan no end of trouble, fanning the flames burned.

(The author is deputy director of the China International Institute for Strategic and International Studies Department issues)

( Editor : cn005)

Auto Translation From

人民日报海外版:美日统治亚太只能是黄粱一梦


小 大 打印
2014-05-03 08:10:43 人民网-人民日报海外版 参与评论(25)人

5月1日,日本防卫省官员宣布,日本自卫队将于下月进行“夺岛”军演。日本媒体称,演习明显是为了在钓鱼岛问题上对抗中国。这不禁让人想起,美国总统奥巴马在访问日本的行程中,一次又一次为日争夺岛屿主权“助威”。

更让人不安的是美日领导人会见后发表的联合声明。两国极力抬高美日同盟地位,将同盟描绘为“地区和平与安全的基石”,同时,高度肯定美“亚太再平衡”战略与日“积极和平主义”政策的所谓“积极意义”。在此基础上,美日堂而皇之地宣布,两国需要强化同盟关系,以使同盟“在确保亚太和平与繁荣方面发挥主导作用”。

然而,作为冷战时期形成的双边安排,美日同盟强调“零和”而非“共赢”,突出“矛盾”而非“共识”。两国的目标很明显,通过打击、压制中国,谋取长远战略优势和地区主导权。

日美联合声明具有明显的反华色彩。在钓鱼岛问题上,美国其实很清楚争议的由来,也明白问题激化是日单方面造成的。目前是日方坚持不承认岛屿存在争议,拒绝与中国通过和平方式解决争端,但在联合声明中,美国却公然声称,钓鱼岛在日施政之下,适用于《日美安保条约》。美国甚至倒打一耙,扬言反对任何试图损害日本对钓鱼岛施政的单方面行动。另外,日美都划设有防空识别区,却别有用心地对中国东海防空识别区表示关切。

日美都不是南海主权声索方,却热衷对南海事务指手画脚。美日要求声索方澄清声索的基础,明显是针对中国的“九段线”。中国正在与东盟国家进行良性沟通,讨论如何全面有效落实《南海各方行为宣言》,就“南海行为准则”进行磋商,进一步增强南海当事方的互信和信心。中国早已阐明,对准则的制定要有合理预期,需协商一致、排除干扰、循序渐进。但美日仍不依不饶,鼓噪准则“速成论”。对于菲律宾不顾中国反对,一意孤行将南海问题提交国际仲裁庭,中国多次阐明严正立场,同时致力与其他当事方通过和平对话,协商解决领土和管辖权争议,而美日却大肆宣扬支持菲律宾通过国际仲裁解决问题。

美日可以通过联合声明逞一时之快,但要遏制中国、统治亚太只能是黄粱一梦。




美日不可能遏制中国。中国正在实现民族复兴,是一只已经醒来的狮子,任何国家都不可能凭借外力遏制中国的发展。美日也不可能孤立中国。中国是重要的亚太国家,“你来,或者不来,我就在这里”。更重要的是,中国日益成为亚太发展的积极因素,与地区国家的相互依存不断提升。地区国家欢迎美日,同样重视中国,不愿意再选边站队。

美日想引领亚太事务,却难以一呼百应。当今世界的主题是和平与发展,基于冷战思维的同盟关系是逆潮流而动。美日罔顾他国利益和关切,无视地区和平与安全,是地区之祸而非地区之福。奉劝美日:得道多助,失道寡助;养虎为患后患无穷,煽风点火引火烧身。

(作者为中国国际问题研究所国际战略研究部副主任)

(责任编辑:cn005)
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
I agree with the article below. The Chinese cops are setting themselves up for potentially disastrous result with this new ammo.


Exclusive: First Photos of Curious Lethal(?) Chinese 9x20mmR Type 05 Police Ammunition
Steve Johnson


FSsRnAg.jpg


9x20mmR Type 05 Ammunition-1
Last month China’s Ministry of Public Security began allowing beat-cops on patrol to carry guns. The gun approved by the Ministry is the obscure Type 05 Police Revolver, first published online by Max Popenker. Max wrote at World.Guns.Ru …

The ammunition, which is apparently based on old and rather anemic .38 S&W (9x20R) round, retains enough muzzle energy to pose a threat to any unprotected low-grade criminal at short ranges; and even if this gun will fail into wrong hands, any police body armor will be able to stop the bullet. The muzzle velocity for standard round is given as 220 m/s (720 fps). No bullet weights are given, but we can expect this round to be ballistically similar to .38 S&W, thus having muzzle energy about 220 Joules (160 Ft-Lbs).

Y17qDtC.jpg


Max also published a photo of the 9x20mmR rounds chambered by this gun, a jacketed round and a rubber bullet round. Here is where it gets interesting: a photo has just surfaced on Chinese forums showing a cross-section of the bullets (I believe TFB is the first English-language website to post them). It turns out that both bullets are potentially less lethal. The rubber bullet is what you would expect: a long polymer bullet. The jacketed bullet is interesting. It has a copper jacket covering a block of high-density polyethylene at the front and a lead disc at the base. The lead base looks like it makes up around 40% of the total volume of the bullet.

9x20mmR Type 05 Ammunition-1



According to the specifications also published in Chinese forums, the bullets weighs 123 gr and has a muzzle velocity of 721 fps. This works out to a muzzle energy of just 142 ft.lbs. This is the same muzzle energy as a high velocity .22 LR and less than a hyper velocity .22 LR. Penetration would be a lot worse than a .22 LR owing to the larger caliber and expansion of the polymer components.

The specifications …

type 05 chinese

mfzJ4Aq.jpg


English translation …

3. Primarily technical data.
Caliber: 9mm
Total cartridge length: ≤30mm
Total cartridge weight: ≤12.6g
Bullet weight: ≤8g
Muzzle velocity: 220m/s ± 10m/s
Average peak chamber pressure: ≤1100kg/cm³
Average accuracy(fired from a fixed mounted ballistic device, at 25m range): R50<2.0cm

The Chinese authorities may have had the best of intentions when they decided to arm the police with less lethal ammunition, but this decision may backfire on them (no pun intended). The Chinese Police officers will soon discover that neither of these two rounds will stop a criminal in his or her tracks. This will lead to police shooting their guns in situations that do not justify lethal force because they will assume that the bullets will not kill.

This scenario has played out wherever Tasers have been introduced in the West. The difference being that Tasers are non-lethal. Bullets, rubber or lead, can be lethal. This is why we call them “less lethal”, rather than non-lethal. Col. Cooper was absolutely correct when he said nobody should point a gun at anyone or anything they are not willing to kill or destroy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
This one is funny. Obama is rallying for Made in America.

[video=youtube;T2iMeiPXy4o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2iMeiPXy4o[/video]

Now I would understand if they just didn't know but since they put an American flag over the Chinese company name and characters, they knew it was there.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
This one is funny. Obama is rallying for Made in America.

[video=youtube;T2iMeiPXy4o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2iMeiPXy4o[/video]

Now I would understand if they just didn't know but since they put an American flag over the Chinese company name and characters, they knew it was there.

LOL...Doh!:p

homer-doh-tipping-app-review.gif
 

A.Man

Major
This one is funny. Obama is rallying for Made in America.

[video=youtube;T2iMeiPXy4o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2iMeiPXy4o[/video]

Now I would understand if they just didn't know but since they put an American flag over the Chinese company name and characters, they knew it was there.

It looks like: A Cheap Product-The American Propaganda!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top