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.

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.

July 9 (Reuters) - Futures linked to Canada's main stock index rose on the back of metal prices on Tuesday, while investors awaited U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's congressional testimony on monetary policy later in the day. The S&P/TSX 60 futures were up 0.25% by 06:28 a.m. ET (1028 GMT). The Toronto Stock Exchange's materials sector was set to re Oil futures , dipped as fears over supply disruption eased after Hurricane Beryl, which hit major refineries along with the U.S. Gulf Coast, caused minimal impact. Markets will be heavily focussed on Powell's two-day monetary policy testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, starting at 10 a.m. ET (1400 GMT), which can help investors gauge the Fed's rate-cut path. Following last week's softer jobs data, market participants are now pricing in a 77% chance of a rate cut by the U.S. central bank in September. The main macro event for the markets this week will be the U.S. consumer prices data due on Thursday, which can help assess the trajectory of inflation in the world' biggest economy. Wall Street futures were also up on Tuesday after the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab and Nasdaq (.IXIC), opens new tab touched record closing highs in the previous session. In Canada, fears of the economy slipping into recession advanced after the latest data showed that the unemployment rate rose to a 29-month high in June. Traders are now pricing in a 65% chance of another cut by the Bank of Canada, which already trimmed interest rates last month. In corporate news, Cenovus Energy (CVE.TO), opens new tab said it is demobilizing some staff at its Sunrise oil sands project in northern Alberta as a precaution due to the evolving wildfire situation in the area.

Japan and the Philippines signed an important defense agreement, and the two sides became "quasi-allies". On July 8, local time, Japan and the Philippines signed the "Reciprocal Access Agreement" in Manila. The agreement will relax restrictions on the movement of personnel between the Japanese Self-Defense Forces and the Philippine military during joint exercises, mutual visits and other operations in each other's countries. In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian responded at a regular press conference on the 8th that exchanges and cooperation between countries should not undermine mutual understanding and trust between regional countries, should not undermine regional peace and stability, and should not target third parties or undermine the interests of third parties. The Asia-Pacific region does not need military groups, let alone "small circles" that provoke camp confrontation and instigate a "new Cold War". Any actions that undermine peace and stability in the region and undermine unity and cooperation in the region will arouse the vigilance and common opposition of the people in the region. Japan and the Philippines upgraded to a "quasi-alliance" relationship On the same day, a "2+2" meeting attended by the foreign ministers and defense ministers of Japan and the Philippines was held in Manila. Japanese Defense Minister Minoru Kihara and Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa attended the talks with Philippine Defense Minister Gilbert Teodoro and Foreign Minister Enrique Manalo. This is the second Japan-Philippines "2+2" meeting. The last one was held in Tokyo in April 2022. Witnessed by Philippine President Marcos, the two sides signed the "Reciprocal Access Agreement". Marcos expressed the hope that the bilateral relations between the Philippines and Japan and the trilateral cooperation between the Philippines, Japan and the United States will be further deepened. The "Reciprocal Access Agreement" is also known as the "Military Visits Agreement". Military and defense cooperation between sovereign states, especially sending troops into each other's territory, usually faces complicated procedures and other problems. In order to simplify the procedures, the two countries will reach relevant agreements to simplify the approval procedures for the entry of troops from both sides into each other's countries, and facilitate mutual visits and joint military activities between the two countries' troops. The "Reciprocal Access Agreement" was born. Take the "Reciprocal Access Agreement" signed by Japan and Australia (full name "Agreement between Japan and Australia on Promoting Mutual Access and Cooperation Facilitation between the Japanese Self-Defense Forces and the Australian Defense Force") as an example. The agreement has 29 articles, covering many areas such as entry and exit procedures for troops, jurisdiction, taxation, cost burden and compensation. The key is to simplify the entry and exit procedures for visiting troops and their members, ships, aircraft, etc., relax restrictions on the transportation of weapons, ammunition and materials carried by visiting troops, and provide a legal basis for the two countries' troops and weapons and equipment to enter each other's territory. Japan and the Philippines signed the "Reciprocal Access Agreement", making the Philippines the third country to conclude this agreement with Japan after Australia and the United Kingdom. Cai Liang, Secretary-General and Researcher of the China-Japan Relations Research Center of the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, analyzed to The Paper (www.thepaper.cn) that Japan and the Philippines have their own strategic considerations for signing the "Reciprocal Access Agreement". As for the Philippines, due to its limited strength, it does not exclude any foreign power willing to strengthen military cooperation with the Philippines from intervening in the South China Sea situation. Therefore, it can be seen that in the past two years, the Philippines has actively promoted Australia, France, India and other countries to intervene in the South China Sea and strengthen military cooperation with them, involving intelligence, weapons and equipment, and training and exercises. "Japan's purpose is very simple. Strengthening military cooperation with the Philippines is to strategically balance China. The United States and the Philippines are allies, and the US-Japan alliance has been upgraded to a 'quasi-alliance'. The military cooperation between the United States, Japan and the Philippines has been upgraded to a new level." Cai Liang said, "The signing of an important defense agreement between Japan and the Philippines will make it easier for Japan to intervene in the South China Sea situation and seek the 'three seas linkage' of the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait, in order to better respond to China's strategy and enhance its international influence." As for whether the signing of the "Reciprocal Access Agreement" means that Japan will deploy the Self-Defense Forces in the Philippines, Cai Liang pointed out that this agreement only simplifies the procedures for the troops of both sides to enter each other's territory, and is more suitable for short-term training, military exercises, etc., and is not a long-term deployment of the Self-Defense Forces in the Philippines. The two countries deepen military cooperation The Philippine presidential office also said in a statement that Japan is one of the four major strategic partners of the Philippines, and the two countries have established a strategic partnership for more than ten years. It seems no coincidence that Japan and the Philippines signed the "Reciprocal Access Agreement" at this time. Recently, China-Philippines relations have become tense around the situation in the South China Sea. The Global Times quoted Japan's Kyodo News Agency as saying that the two sides are seeking to strengthen cooperation against China. Minoru Kihara said last week: "The Philippines is located in a strategically important region, occupies a key position on Japan's sea lanes, and is also an ally of the United States. Joint training and strengthening cooperation with the Philippines are of great significance to the realization of a 'free and open Indo-Pacific region'." Cai Liang said that Japan's intervention in the South China Sea situation is mainly to reduce strategic pressure in the East China Sea and southwest of Japan, but it is not conducive to peace and stability in the South China Sea. It is reported that Japan and the Philippines began negotiations on the agreement in November last year. The signing of the "Reciprocal Access Agreement" by the two sides lays the foundation for the two countries to strengthen bilateral and even multilateral military cooperation in the future. The Japanese government intends to allow the Self-Defense Forces to formally participate in the annual US-Philippines "Shoulder to Shoulder" joint exercises around the Philippines after the agreement comes into effect. The Self-Defense Forces previously participated in the "Shoulder to Shoulder" exercises as observers, and will be able to formally participate after signing the agreement. In April this year, the United States and the Philippines held the largest "Shoulder to Shoulder" exercise to date, involving 5,000 Philippine personnel and 11,000 US personnel. The military exercise also included about 150 Australian military personnel and 100 French naval personnel. According to the plan, 14 countries including Japan and India sent personnel as observers. The "Typhon" medium-range missile launch system deployed by the US military on Luzon Island in the Philippines for the first time participated in the exercise, which aroused great attention from all walks of life. In terms of weapons and equipment exports, Japan and the Philippines have gradually strengthened military cooperation in recent years. The Philippines recently agreed to purchase five Coast Guard patrol ships from Japan to enhance its patrol capabilities in the South China Sea. Defense News reported in November last year that the Philippines had received an early warning radar system from Japan in 2023, the first major equipment transfer since the Japanese government lifted the postwar defense export ban in 2014. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Kamikawa mentioned topics such as defense equipment transfer, "government security capability enhancement support" (OSA), and economic and trade cooperation. The OSA project was created by the Kishida government and plans to allocate billions of yen in budget to assist the military construction of the Philippines and other countries, including providing the Philippines with 5 sets of coastal surveillance radars. Regarding Japan's relaxation of restrictions on defense equipment exports, the Chinese Ministry of Defense previously responded that Japan has continuously broken through the constraints of the "peace constitution" and the principle of "exclusive defense", and has been making small moves in the field of military security, which has aroused high vigilance and strong concern from the international community. China requires Japan to deeply reflect on its history of aggression, attach importance to the security concerns of its Asian neighbors, adhere to the path of peaceful development, and win the trust of its Asian neighbors and the international community with practical actions.

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.