link1s.site

BRI: embracing Chinese green practices for a sustainable future

Editor's Note:

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Through the lens of foreign pundits, we take a look at 10 years of the BRI - how it achieves win-win cooperation between China and participating countries of the BRI and how it has given the people of these countries a sense of fulfillment.

In an interview with Global Times (GT) reporter Li Aixin, Erik Solheim (Solheim), former under-secretary-general of the United Nations and former executive director of the UN Environment Programme, recalled how the BRI helped shorten a previously long journey in Sri Lanka to a half-hour trip. "We will all be losers in a de-globalized, de-coupled world. The BRI can play a key role in bringing the world together," Solheim said.

This is the 18th piece of the series.

GT: How do you evaluate the role of the BRI in promoting development in participating countries over the past 10 years?

Solheim: The BRI has been a major driver of development since it was announced by President Xi Jinping in Kazakhstan 10 years ago. The China-Laos Railway has connected landlocked Laos to the Chinese and European rail network, making it possible for Laos to sell more goods and welcome more tourists. Rail corridors in Kenya and from Djibouti to Addis Ababa connect the interior of Africa to the coast, bringing opportunities for much faster development in East Africa. The Bandung-Jakarta railway in Indonesia, Hanoi metro, roads and ports in Sri Lanka - there are great examples of good south-south and BRI projects in almost every corner of the world.

GT: In your experience of traveling around the world, has any BRI-related story left a deep impression on you?

Solheim: Yes, many! I'll just mention two.

When I was chief negotiator in the Sri Lanka peace process 15 years ago, it took a long time to travel from the airport to Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka. When I came back last year, it took half an hour on wonderful Chinese-built highways.

Traveling through Mombasa, a coastal city in Kenya, you see a lot of poverty and run down houses. Then all of a sudden, a green, clean, well-run oasis opens up. It's the end station of the Nairobi-Mombasa railway which links the capital Nairobi to the coast. The rail station stands out and is showing the future for Kenya.

GT: The EU proposed the Global Gateway, and the US proposed the Build Back Better World. What do you think are the similarities and differences between these projects and the BRI?

Solheim: I really wish success for the Western initiatives. What developing nations ask for is a choice of good cooperation with both China and the West. Unfortunately, up to now, a number of the Western-led initiatives have been more like media events. They lack structure, secretariat, finances and clear direction. Nearly all nations in the world want to see close people-to-people relations, investment and political cooperation with both China and the West. No one wants to choose.

GT: Some people from the West are talking about "de-coupling" and "de-risking." Both seem to be another way of saying "de-globalization." Do you think "de-coupling" and "de-risking" will affect the BRI? And what role will the BRI play in maintaining globalization?

Solheim: Decoupling is probably the most unwise idea in the world today. It's outright dangerous. Facing climate change, environmental degradation, economic troubles, war in Ukraine and other places, and the threat of pandemics, we need more, not less, cooperation. We will all be losers in a de-globalized, de-coupled world. The BRI can play a key role in bringing the world together. Almost all developing countries have made BRI agreements with China. As an example, when President Xi met all the leaders of Central Asia recently in Xi'an, Northwest China's Shaanxi Province, they made a very ambitious declaration on future green cooperation between China and Central Asia.

GT: You have previously said that the BRI is a fantastic vehicle to promote green global development, which can boost the economy and ecology at the same time. Could you elaborate on how you think the BRI has achieved development of the economy and ecology?

Solheim: In the beginning there were too many fossil fuel projects among BRI programs. In the BRI International Green Development Coalition, we argued this should stop. When President Xi pledged to stop building new coal-fired power projects overseas, it was one of the most important environmental decisions ever. Also, it happened at a time when important BRI nations like Bangladesh, Kenya and Pakistan decided they could grow their economies and go green without coal. The BRI will in the next decade become the world's most important vehicle for green energy and green transport. We will see massive investments in solar and wind power, hydrogen, electric batteries and more.

GT: How do you view China's goal of achieving harmony between humanity and nature in modernization? In what way is China's story in pursuing harmony between humanity and nature relevant to other countries?

Solheim: China now covers between 60 percent and 80 percent of all major green technologies in the world - solar, wind, hydro, batteries, electric cars and high-speed rail. Companies like Longi, BYD and CATL are the world leaders in their sectors.

More remarkably and maybe less noticed abroad, China is also a global leader in protecting nature. It's embarking upon one of the most massive national park programs, with a focus on Qinghai Province and Xizang Autonomous Region. China is by far the biggest tree planter in the world and the global leader in desert control in Kubuqi, Inner Mongolia and other places. China has been hugely successful in the recovery of endangered species like the Giant Panda, Tibetan Antelope and Snow Leopard.

A new center for mangrove restoration is being set up in Shenzhen and the fishing ban in the Yangtze will restore that magnificent ecosystem.

The Belt and Road is a great opportunity for the world to learn from good Chinese green practices.

Ukrainian Presidential Office: Russia's attacks on multiple locations in Ukraine have killed 36 people

The Ukrainian presidential office said on July 8 local time that Russia's large-scale attacks on many parts of Ukraine have killed 36 people and injured 140 others. According to the Ukrainian State Emergency Service, a total of 619 rescue workers and 132 equipment participated in the rescue work across Ukraine that day. Ukrainian President Zelensky said on social media on the 8th that Russia launched more than 40 missiles of various types at Ukraine that day. Residential buildings and infrastructure in many cities in Ukraine were damaged in varying degrees of attacks, and a children's hospital was destroyed. Rescue departments are currently conducting emergency rescue on the scene. The Russian Ministry of Defense issued a statement on the 8th local time saying that Ukrainian officials' claim that Russia used missiles to attack Ukrainian civilian facilities was untrue. The damage suffered by Kiev was caused by the fall of missiles launched by the city's air defense system.

Hedge fund Elliott challenges court verdict it lost against LME on nickel

LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) - U.S.-based hedge fund Elliott Associates on Tuesday urged a London court to overturn a verdict supporting the London Metal Exchange's (LME) cancellation of nickel trades partly because the exchange failed to disclose documents. The LME annulled $12 billion in nickel trades in March 2022 when prices shot to records above $100,000 a metric ton in a few hours of chaotic trade. Elliott and market maker Jane Street Global Trading brought a case demanding a combined $472 million in compensation, alleging at a trial in June last year that the 146-year-old exchange had acted unlawfully. London's High Court ruled last November that the LME had the right to cancel the trades because of exceptional circumstances, and was not obligated to consult market players prior to its decision. Lawyers for Elliott told London's Court of Appeal that the LME belatedly released documents in May detailing its "Kill Switch" and "Trade Halt" internal procedures. It also newly disclosed an internal report that Elliott said detailed potential conflicts of interest at the exchange. "It was troubling that one gets disclosure out of the blue in the Court of Appeal for the first time," Elliott lawyer Monica Carss-Frisk told the court. Jane Street Global did not appeal the ruling. "If we had had them (documents) in the proceedings before the divisional court, we may well have sought permission to cross examine." LME lawyers said the new documents were not relevant. "The disclosed documents do not affect the reasoning of the divisional court or the merits of the arguments on appeal," the exchange said in documents prepared for the appeal hearing. "Elliott's appeal is largely a repetition of the arguments which were advanced, and rightly rejected." The LME said it had both the power and a duty to unwind the trades because a record $20 billion in margin calls could have led to at least seven clearing members defaulting, systemic risk and a potential "death spiral". Elliott said the ruling diluted protection provided by the Human Rights Act and also wrongly concluded the LME had the power to cancel the trades.

How China can transform from passive to active amid US chip curbs

On Monday, executives from the three major chip giants in the US - Intel, Qualcomm, and Nvidia - met with US officials, including Antony Blinken, to voice their opposition to the Biden administration's plan of imposing further restrictions on chip sales to Chinese companies and investments in China. The Semiconductor Industry Association also released a similar statement, opposing the exclusion of US semiconductor companies from the Chinese market. First of all, we mustn't believe that the appeals of these companies and industry associations will collectively change the determination of US political elites to stifle China's progress. These US elites are very fearful of China's rapid development, and they see "chip chokehold" as a new discovery and a successful tactic formed under US leadership and with the cooperation of allies. Currently, the chip industry is the most complex technology in human history, with only a few companies being at the forefront. They are mainly from the Netherlands, Taiwan island, South Korea, and Japan, most of which are in the Western Pacific. These countries and regions are heavily influenced by the US. Although these companies have their own expertise, they still use some American technologies in their products. Therefore, Washington quickly persuaded them to form an alliance to collectively prevent the Chinese mainland from obtaining chips and manufacturing technology. Washington is proud of this and wants to continuously tighten the noose on China. The New York Times directly titled an article "'An Act of War': Inside America's Silicon Blockade Against China, " in which an American AI expert, Gregory Allen, publicly claimed that this is an act of war against China. He further stated that there are two dates that will echo in history from 2022: The first is February 24, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, and the second is October 7, when the US imposed a sweeping set of export controls on selling microchips to China. China must abandon its illusions and launch a challenging and effective counterattack. We already have the capability to produce 28nm chips, and we can use "small chip" technology to assemble small semiconductors into a more powerful "brain," exploring 14nm or even 7nm. Additionally, China is the world's largest commercial market for commodity semiconductors. Last year, semiconductor procurement in China amounted to $180 billion, surpassing one-third of the global total. In the past, China had been faced with the choice between independent innovation and external purchases. Due to the high returns from external purchases, it is easy for it to become the overwhelming choice over independent research and development. However, now the US is gradually blocking the option of external purchases, and China has no strategic choice but to independently innovate, which in turn puts tremendous pressure on American companies. Scientists generally expect that, although China may take some detours, such as recently apprehending several company leaders who fraudulently obtained subsidies from national semiconductor policies, China has the ability to gradually overcome the chip difficulties. And we will form our own breakthroughs and industrial chain, which is expected to put quite a lot of pressure on US companies. If domestic firms acquire half of China's $180 billion per year in chip acquisitions, this would provide a significant boost for the industry as a whole and help it advance steadily. The New York Times refers to the battle on chips as a bet by Washington. "If the controls are successful, they could handicap China for a generation; if they fail, they may backfire spectacularly, hastening the very future the United States is trying desperately to avoid," it argued. Whether it is a war or a game, when the future is uncertain, what US companies hope for most of all is that they can sell simplified versions of high-end chips to China, so that the option of external purchases by China continues to exist and remains attractive. This can not only maintain the interests of the US companies, enabling them to obtain sufficient funds to develop more advanced technologies, but also disrupt China's plans for independent innovation. This idea is entirely based on their own commercial interests and also has a certain political and national strategic appeal. Hence, there is no shortage of supporters within the US government. US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen seems to be one of them, as she has repeatedly stated that the US' restrictions on China will not "fundamentally" hurt China, but will only be "narrowly targeted." The US will balance its strict suppression on China from the perspective of maintaining its technological hegemony, while also leaving some room for China, in order to undermine China's determination to counterattack in terms of independent innovation. China needs to use this mentality of the US to its advantage. On the one hand, China should continue to purchase US chips to maintain its economic fundamentals, and on the other hand, it should firmly support the development of domestic semiconductor companies from both financial and market perspectives. If China were to continue relying on exploiting the gaps in US chip policies in the long term, akin to a dependency on opium, it would only serve to weaken China further as it becomes increasingly addicted. China's market is extremely vast, and its innovation capabilities are generally improving and expanding. Although the chip industry is highly advanced, if there is one country that can win this counterattack, it is China. As long as we resolutely continue on the path of independent innovation, this road will definitely become wider. Various breakthroughs and turning points that are unimaginable today may soon occur.

US' ban on high-tech investment cannot stifle China's high-tech development

US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Wednesday restricting investments in China, intended to further stymie China's advances in three cutting-edge technology areas: semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and certain artificial intelligence systems. The "decoupling" of high tech from China began under Donald Trump, and the Biden administration has continued that ambition. However, the new order doesn't target US investments already invested in China, but the new ones. The Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that the US restrictions will be narrowly targeted and will not "have a fundamental impact on affecting the investment climate for China." Biden's new executive order is still subject to consultation with the US business community and the public and is not expected to take effect until next year. The order has been brewed for a long time and has generated a lot of publicity. But almost no one believes that this executive order will deal a new practical blow to Chinese high technology, because almost everyone knows that China needs American technology more than American money. The order has gained much attention because it is seen as part of a broader trend of the US drifting away from China. The promulgation and brewing process of the executive order reflects the strong desire of American political elites to suppress China's high-tech development, as well as a fierce game between those supporting the executive order and the concerns of the technology and economic sectors about a potential backfire on the US. It is a kind of compromise. Washington obviously hopes that major allies will follow Biden's executive order. The UK's Sunak government has made cautious statements, stating that it is consulting business and the financial sector before deciding whether to follow suit. In fact, China also has the ability to influence the extent to which Biden's executive order is implemented, as well as the extent to which the US will go in terms of "decoupling" from China. We are definitely not just passive recipients of US policies. American political elites are eager to "decouple" from China as quickly and deeply as possible, but they fear two things: First, this will immediately damage the performance of relevant high-tech companies in the US, undermine their influence and further innovation. The current Biden administration, in particular, does not want to incur strong resentment from Silicon Valley and Wall Street toward the escalating "decoupling," which will ultimately lead to the loss of support for the Democratic Party. Second, they are afraid of pushing China toward more resolute independent innovation to achieve breakthroughs in key technologies such as chips. If the US "decoupling" policy gives birth to major technological achievements in China, it means that Washington will completely lose the gamble: They originally wants to stifle China's high-tech development, but ends up strangling their own companies. What China needs to do next is to fully unleash our innovation vitality, continuously reduce our dependence on high-tech products from the US, and prove that as long as we are determined to achieve independent innovation, we have the ability to accomplish things. We need to prove that being pressured by the US will only make us stronger. As long as there are several solid proofs of this trend, the US policy community will fall into unprecedented chaos, and their panic will be much more severe than when they saw the rapid expansion of the Chinese economy before Trump started the trade war. Regardless of the future of China-US relations, the current battle will be the key battle that determines the future competition between China and the US. China can only win and cannot afford to lose. High-tech products such as chips are not isolated. The innovation power of China's entire manufacturing industry and the creative vitality of the whole society are the foundation for shaping these key achievements. When pressured by the US, our society needs to generate confidence and resilience from all directions, and we need to accelerate and seize every opportunity, rather than shrink and simply defend. Otherwise, the US will gain the upper hand in momentum, and we will truly be in a passive and defensive position. We must see that the US is on the offensive, but its offensive is becoming weaker and weaker, and it is always hesitant with each step. What is presented to China are difficulties and risks, but also the dawn of victory.

Coexisting and cooperating with China is the only choice for the US

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared at the Munich Security Conference: "If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu." The arrogant thinking of American political elites is evident: Whoever does not comply with the US will be excluded from the table of the American-led system and put on the menu. How arrogant. The US is actively pushing for "decoupling" from China and trying to persuade the entire West to "decouple" from China, using the term "de-risking." Washington hopes to ultimately contain China's development in order to maintain American hegemony. However, this time, Washington is facing a historically experienced and strategically rich Eastern civilization. Previous opponents targeted by the US have chosen to confront the US strategically. The US not only has the strongest technological and military capabilities but also controls global financial and information networks with a large number of allies. Those countries that had engaged in direct confrontations had suffered losses. Some of them had disintegrated, some had been weakened, and some had fallen into difficulties. However, what Washington sees from China is strategic composure and resilience. China is now staging an unprecedented and grand "Tai Chi." However, some Chinese people feel that this is not enough: Why can't we confront the US head-on? But I want to say that this is precisely the brilliance of China. This grand "Tai Chi" is about dismantling the pressure the US is putting on China. Europe is different from the US. A European diplomat once said in private that the topic of China has become toxic in the US, but in Europe, it is still possible to openly display friendliness toward China. There is genuine competition between the Europe and China despite Europe leans more toward the US between China and the US. Only in terms of ideology does the term "West" truly exist. In terms of fundamental economic interests, Europe has considerable independence. In terms of security, their attitude toward China also differs greatly from that of the US. In the Asia-Pacific region or China's periphery, the US wants to create an "Asian NATO." The specific situations of countries in dispute with China are very different. China has enormous influence in the region, is the largest trading partner of the vast majority of countries in the region and has friendly relations with most countries in the region. The disputes with countries are not fundamental strategic conflicts, and China has the ability to manage disputes with each specific country and push them to move toward neutrality to varying degrees without being tied to the US' policy toward China. China has a lot of trading partners and stakeholders in the US. The trade volume between China and the US, despite the decline, reached $664.4 billion in 2023, which shows China's huge presence in the US, and is the bond of the two countries in the current situation. The US is not a country where the political elites can have absolute say, and the huge interests have forced the US president and senior officials to repeatedly proclaim that they "don't want to decouple from China" and instead they want to "manage the US-China competition" and see "preventing a war with China" as clearly in everyone's best interest. China should engage in a "strategic battle" with the US at the closest possible distance. We need to maintain friendly relations with certain forces within the US, speed up the resumption of flights between the two countries, increase personnel exchanges and completely reverse the downturn of China-US contacts during the pandemic. In addition to the above dismantling, we also have the huge increment in the "Belt and Road." This initiative will increase China's power to compete with the US, greatly extending the front line that the US needs to maintain in containing China, making the US more powerless. In order to dismantle the US strategy toward China, China must become more diversified while maintaining strategic consistency. Our national diplomacy toward the US is very principled, rational and determined, which is clearly different from other countries targeted by the US. Our public diplomacy toward the US needs to be unique, with both "anti-American voices" and efforts to maintain friendly relations between the two societies and further expand economic and practical cooperation with the US. Just as eagles have their own way of flying and doves have their own formation, just as we see the US as complex, China must also be seen as complex in the eyes of the US. China is both a geopolitical concern and a profitable investment destination for them, and is one of the largest trading partners that is difficult to replace. Some American political elites proclaim China as an "enemy," but it is important to make the majority of Americans feel that China is not. No matter how intense the struggles between China and the US may be, we cannot shape the entire US toward an enemy direction. China has to make the US political elites recognize that it is futile to deal with China in the same way as it historically dealt with the Soviet Union and other major powers. Furthermore, willingly or unwillingly, coexistence and cooperation with China will be their only choice.