White House spokeswoman Karina Jean-Pierre denied a report in the U.S. media on the 8th that President Joseph Biden did not receive treatment for Parkinson's disease. Biden had the first televised debate of the 2024 presidential election with Republican opponent Donald Trump on June 27, and his poor performance on the spot triggered discussions about his physical condition. The New York Times reported that a doctor specializing in the treatment of Parkinson's disease had "visited" the White House eight times from August last year to March this year. Facing the media's questions about Biden's health, Jean-Pierre asked and answered himself at a regular White House press conference on the 8th: "Has the president received treatment for Parkinson's disease? No. Is he currently receiving treatment for Parkinson's disease? No, he is not. Is he taking medication for Parkinson's disease? No." Jean-Pierre said Biden had seen a neurologist three times, all related to his annual physical examination. She also took out the report issued by the doctor after Biden's most recent physical examination in February this year. The report said, "An extremely detailed neurological examination was once again reassuring" because no symptoms consistent with stroke, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease were found. The doctor who went to the White House mentioned by the New York Times is Kevin Kanal, a neurology and movement disorder expert at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland and an authority on Parkinson's disease. Jean-Pierre suggested that the doctor might have come to treat military personnel on duty at the White House.

JOHANNESBURG, July 9 (Reuters) - The South African rand was little changed in early trade on Tuesday, as markets awaited the Federal Reserve chair's testimony in Washington and U.S. June inflation data for clues on the country's future interest rate path. At 0644 GMT, the rand traded at 18.1300 against the dollar , near its previous close of 18.1175. "The rand has opened marginally softer at 18.13 this morning, and we expect trading to remain range-bound in the short term," said Andre Cilliers, currency strategist at TreasuryONE. Markets will listen to the tone of Fed Chair Jerome Powell's testimony in Washington on Tuesday and Wednesday and look to June inflation data out of the U.S. later this week for hints on the future interest rate path in the world's biggest economy. "Analysts will be gauging the Fed's response to the recent softer U.S. economic and labour data, with markets already starting to price in two rate cuts this year," Cilliers added. The risk-sensitive rand often takes cues from global drivers like U.S. economic policy in the absence of major local factors. South Africa's benchmark 2030 government bond was slightly stronger in early deals, with the yield down 1 basis point at 9.74%.

According to Chinese movie ticketing platform Taopiaopiao, the box office for the 2024 Spring Festival holidays surpassed last year's 6.766 billion yuan and entered the top two in the history of Chinese Spring Festival holidays box office. I recently watched three movies, and I think they are all good. However, their overall level is not higher than the movies from last Spring Festival holidays. The higher box office compared to last year reflects the strong potential for movie consumption in Chinese society. Our filmmakers need to make further efforts. The current development of Chinese movies has many advantages. People often complain that our film creation faces various "restricted areas," but in terms of societal topics, the space for Chinese film creation is relatively large and relaxed. For example, Zhang Yimou's film Article 20 shows protest scenes and boldly explores the issue of judicial injustice in depth. A few years ago, the film I Am Not Madame Bovary specifically discussed the sensitive issue of petitioning. Another film, Johnny Keep Walking! which was aired last year, also touches on serious social issues. The breadth and depth of these films' topics lay the foundation for their attractiveness. The improvement of China's basic film production level has played a role in boosting their success, resulting in Hollywood films being collectively pushed off the Chinese box office charts. Now, almost any domestic film can be considered "watchable." The next step is to produce world-class masterpieces and promote the collective advancement of Chinese films on the global stage. The three movies that I watched are YOLO, directed, written and starring Jia Ling, a representative of the new generation of female Chinese directors, Pegasus 2, directed by Han Han and Article 20. They are all realistic-themed films, and the actors who play the main characters have some overlap. Although each of them is good, as mentioned earlier, I personally feel that their overall quality is not as good as films screened during last year's Spring Festival holidays. So I have a feeling that Chinese movies have been spinning in place for a year in such a good market environment. Of course, I am not an expert, so what I say may not be correct, or it may be biased. The production level of Chinese films, in terms of technology, has caught up. Domestic films have surpassed Hollywood in the domestic market through competition, which is a great achievement. However, I hope that this does not mark the beginning of a "decoupling" between Chinese movies and the rest of the world, but rather a turning point for Chinese films to reach a higher level domestically and to go global. This requires Chinese realistic films to not only be loved by domestic audiences but also become increasingly "understandable" to foreigners, allowing them to empathize with us through these films. If Chinese films can gradually go global through market-oriented approaches, it will be a new process for the international community to re-recognize and understand China, and to establish common values between us. The earliest understanding of the US by the Chinese people came entirely from the shaping of news propaganda. Later, American films and TV works entered China, showcasing the rich American society. Now, Western media's portrayal of China is completely stereotyped. If Chinese films and other popular culture do not go global, and if a large number of secular elements from China do not appear on the global internet, the outside world's perception of China is likely to be dictated by Western media for a long time. So I hope that China's excellent film market can incubate outstanding works that are loved and enjoyed globally. Not only should our cultural policies provide greater space, but our internet public opinion should also be more tolerant of the interweaving and mutually influencing between Chinese and Western cultural elements. We should not restrict those elements in Chinese films that can resonate with both Chinese and foreign audiences. For example, comedies should not only make Chinese people laugh, but also be understandable to foreigners. Chinese films need to establish their own big stars, including top-tier female stars. In the past, Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan became famous in the West, but they were primarily seen as "Hollywood stars." It is a more challenging journey for Chinese stars to gain international recognition through their own films. The success of Chinese films and Chinese stars worldwide is definitely a complementary process. The backgrounds of our film stories should also be carefully selected and more diverse, enhancing the visual quality and international appeal of the films. Feng Xiaogang's film Be There or Be Square was entirely set in the US, and later, there was another film called Lost in Thailand, both of which achieved good results. Choosing such backgrounds should be encouraged as one of the approaches. In conclusion, I am delighted by the comprehensive recovery of the Chinese film market, and I also hope that the films nurtured by this market will continue to progress. To achieve this, we need to keep introducing the world's best films and collaboratively cultivate the aesthetic taste of the Chinese people alongside Chinese films. Chinese films have already stood up, but they should not monopolize this vast market. Instead, the Chinese market should serve as the stage for them to expand globally.

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 politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn