Taking the initiative to plead guilty to Boeing is not small, but it can avoid being exposed to more problems when it is publicly tried, which is a "minor penalty" for Boeing. So now the families of the crash victims are very opposed to the move, demanding that the trial continue to be open. But after all, Boeing is America's oldest industrial son, whether it is Trump or Biden, and finally have to gently put down, give a chance. The Justice Department had been seeking a guilty plea from Boeing as early as May, when it launched the investigation. After all, if you plead guilty, you only need to pay a fine, and if you really go to court, you don't know how many quality problems Boeing will be exposed by your witnesses. Boeing also knew it had too many flaws, and paying a $243.6 million fine and bringing in a third party to monitor its compliance for three years, totaling more than $400 million in additional expenses, is small change for Boeing. Given Boeing's style in the past few years, this fine may not even force Boeing to tighten production line management. Just this kind of "reconciliation" that completely excludes the victims of the crash can not get the families to agree. Paul Cassell, an attorney for the victims' families, said he plans to ask the federal judge overseeing the case to reject the agreement and "hold this case to an open trial so that all the facts of this case can be presented in a fair and public manner before a jury." The demand is reasonable, but the US judge will most likely side with Boeing.

There has been constant low-level sniping in the West against China's record on climate change, in particular its expansion of coal mining, and its target of 2060 rather than 2050 for carbon zero. I have viewed this with mild if irritated amusement, because when it comes to results, then China, we can be sure, will deliver and most Western countries will fall short, probably well short. It is now becoming clear, however, that we will not have to wait much longer to judge their relative performances. The answer is already near at hand. We now know that in 2023 China's share of renewable energy capacity reached about 50 percent of its total energy capacity. China is on track to shatter its target of installing 1200GW of solar and wind energy capacity by 2030, five years ahead of schedule. And international experts are forecasting that China's target of reaching peak CO2 emissions by 2030 will probably be achieved ahead of schedule, perhaps even by a matter of years. Hitherto, China has advisedly spoken with a quiet voice about its climate targets, sensitive to the fact that it has become by far the world's largest CO2 emitter and aware that its own targets constituted a huge challenge. Now, however, it looks as if China's voice on global warming will carry an authority that no other nation will be able to compete with. There is another angle to this. China is by far the biggest producer of green tech, notably EVs, and renewable energy, namely solar photovoltaics and wind energy. Increasingly China will be able to export these at steadily reducing prices to the rest of the world. The process has already begun. It leaves the West with what it already sees as a tricky problem. How can it become dependent on China for the supply of these crucial elements of a carbon-free economy when it is seeking to de-risk (EU) or decouple (US) its supply chains from China? Climate change poses the greatest risk to humanity of all the issues we face today. There are growing fears that the 1.5-degree Celsius target for global warming will not be met. 2023 was the hottest year ever recorded. Few people are now unaware of the grave threat global warming poses to humanity. This requires the whole world to make common cause and accept this as our overarching priority. Alas, the EU is already talking about introducing tariffs to make Chinese EVs more expensive. And it is making the same kind of noises about Chinese solar panels. The problem is this. Whether Europe likes it or not, it needs a plentiful supply of Chinese EVs and solar panels if it is to reduce its carbon emissions at the speed that the climate crisis requires. According to the International Energy Authority, China "deployed as much solar capacity last year as the entire world did in 2022 and is expected to add nearly four times more than the EU and five times more than the US from 2023-28." The IEA adds, "two-thirds of global wind manufacturing expansion planned for 2025 will occur in China, primarily for its domestic market." In other words, willy-nilly, the West desperately needs China's green tech products. Knee-jerk protectionism demeans Europe; it is a petty and narrow-minded response to the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced. Instead of seeking to resist or obstruct Chinese green imports, it should cooperate with China and eagerly embrace its products. As a recent Financial Times editorial stated: "Beijing's green advances should be seen as positive for China, and for the world." The climate crisis is now in the process of transforming the global political debate. Hitherto it seemed relatively disconnected. That period is coming to an end. China's dramatic breakthrough in new green technologies is offering hope not just to China, but to the whole world, because China will increasingly be able to supply both the developed and developing world with the green technology needed to meet their global targets. Or, to put it another way, it looks very much as if China's economic and technological prowess will play a crucial role in the global fight against climate change. We should not be under any illusion about the kind of challenge humanity faces. We are now required to change the source of energy that powers our societies and economies. This is not new. It has happened before. But previously it was always a consequence of scientific and technological discoveries. Never before has humanity been required to make a conscious decision that, to ensure its own survival, it must adopt new sources of energy. Such an unprecedented challenge will fundamentally transform our economies, societies, cultures, technologies, and the way we live our lives. It will also change the nature of geopolitics. The latter will operate according to a different paradigm, different choices, and different priorities. The process may have barely started, but it is beginning with a vengeance. Can the world rise to the challenge, or will it prioritize petty bickering over the vision needed to save humanity? On the front line, mundane as it might sound, are EVs, wind power, and solar photovoltaics. The author is a visiting professor at the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University and a senior fellow at the China Institute, Fudan University. Follow him on X @martjacques.

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.

On July 8, local time, former British Prime Minister Sunak announced the appointment of the Conservative Party Shadow Cabinet, which is the first shadow cabinet of the Conservative Party in 14 years. Several former British cabinet members during Sunak's tenure as prime minister were appointed to the Conservative Party Shadow Cabinet, including James Cleverly as Shadow Home Secretary and Jeremy Hunt as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. But former Foreign Secretary Cameron was not appointed as Shadow Foreign Secretary. In addition, the new leader of the Conservative Party will be elected as early as this week. On July 4, the UK held a parliamentary election. The counting results showed that the British Labour Party won more than half of the seats and won an overwhelming victory; the Conservative Party suffered a disastrous defeat, ending its 14-year continuous rule.

A couple of days ago, a Quad summit meeting in Sydney scheduled for May 24 was abruptly canceled. The US president had to pull out of his long-anticipated trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea. Instead, the heads of the four Quad member states got together on the margins of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima on May 20. The main reason for the change of plans was the continuous struggle between the White House and Republicans on the Hill over the national debt ceiling. If no compromise is reached, the US federal government might fail to meet its financial commitments already in June; such a technical default would have multiple negative repercussions for the US, as well as for the global economy and finance at large. Let us hope that a compromise between the two branches of US power will be found and that the ceiling of the national debt will be raised once again. However, this rather awkward last-minute cancellation of the Quad summit reflects a fundamental US problem - a growing imbalance between the US geopolitical ambitions and the fragility of the national financial foundation to serve these ambitions. The Biden administration appears to be fully committed to bringing humankind back to the unipolar world that existed right after the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago, but the White House no longer has enough resources at its disposal to sustain such an undertaking. As they say in America: You cannot not have champagne on a beer budget. The growing gap between the ends that the US seeks in international relations and the means that it has available is particularly striking in the case of the so-called dual containment policy that Washington now pursues toward Russia and China. Even half a century ago, when the US was much stronger in relative terms than it is today, the Nixon administration realized that containing both Moscow and Beijing simultaneously was not a good idea: "Dual containment" would imply prohibitively high economic costs for the US and would result in too many unpredictable political risks. The Nixon administration decided to focus on containing the Soviet Union as the most important US strategic adversary of the time. This is why Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing in July 1971 to arrange the first US-China summit in February 1972 leading to a subsequent rapid rapprochement between the two nations. In the early days of the Biden administration, it seemed that the White House was once again trying to avoid the unattractive "dual containment" option. The White House rushed to extend the New START in January 2021 and held an early US-Russia summit meeting five months later in Geneva. At that point many analysts predicted that Biden would play Henry Kissinger in reverse - that is he would try to peace with the relatively weaker opponent (Moscow) in order to focus on containing the stronger one (Beijing). However, after the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it became clear that no accommodation with the Kremlin was on Biden's mind any longer. Still, having decided to take a hard-line stance toward Moscow and to lead a broad Western coalition in providing military and economic assistance to Kiev, Washington has not opted for a more accommodative or at least a more flexible policy toward Beijing. On the contrary, over last year one could observe a continuous hardening of the US' China policy - including granting more political and military support to the Taiwan island, encouraging US allies and partners in Asia to increase their defense spending, engaging in more navel activities in the Pacific and imposing more technology sanctions on China. In the meantime, economic and social problems within the US are mounting. The national debt ceiling is only the tip of an iceberg - the future of the American economy is now clouded by high US Federal Reserve interest rates that slow down growth, feed unemployment and might well lead to a recession. Moreover, the US society remains split along the same lines it was during the presidency of Donald Trump. The Biden administration has clearly failed to reunite America: Many of the social, political, regional, ethnic and even generational divisions have got only deeper since January 2021. It is hard to imagine how a nation divided so deeply and along so many lines could demonstrate continuity and strategic vision in its foreign policy, or to allocate financial resources needed to sustain a visionary and consistent global leadership. Of course, the "dual containment" policy is not the only illustration of the gap between the US ambitions and its resources. The same gap inevitably pops up at every major forum that the US conducts with select groups of countries from the Global South - Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle East. The Biden administration has no shortage of arguments warning these countries about potential perils of cooperating with Moscow or Beijing, but it does not offer too many plausible alternatives that would showcase the US generosity, its strategic vision, and its true commitment to the burning needs of the US interlocutors. To cut it short, Uncle Sam brings lots of sticks to such meetings, but not enough carrots to win the audience. In sum, US foreign policy under President Joe Biden reminds people of a very advanced and highly sophisticated smartphone that has a rather weak battery, which is not really energy efficient. The proud owner of the gadget has to look perennially for a power socket in order not to have the phone running out of power at any inappropriate moment. Maybe the time has come for the smartphone owner to look for another model that would have fewer fancy apps, but a stronger and a more efficient battery, which will make the appliance more convenient and reliable.