A spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) on Monday rejected remarks from the EU Ambassador to China on the anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). MOFCOM said China had expressed strong opposition through various channels since October 2023 and has always advocated for handling economic and trade frictions through dialogue and consultation in order to maintain the overall strategic partnership between China and Europe. EU Ambassador to China Jorge Toledo claimed on Sunday that the EU has been trying to engage with China for months regarding the imposition of tariffs on Chinese EVs but that China had only recently sought to initiate discussions. This is false, the spokesperson said. MOFCOM said that after the European Commission (EC) officially filed a case, Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao sent a letter to European Commission Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis on October 24, 2023, expressing hope to resolve the case through dialogue and negotiation. On November 13, 2023, Wang sent another letter to the European side proposing negotiation suggestions. In February 2024, Wang met with Dombrovskis during the WTO's 13th Ministerial Conference face to face and proposed dialogue and negotiation with the European side. On May 19, 2024, Wang reiterated the hope for dialogue and negotiation to resolve the case in a letter to the European side. Additionally, Chinese technical experts have been sending signals to the European side regarding on-site inspections, hearings, and other channels since the case was filed, expressing willingness to resolve trade frictions through dialogue and negotiation. On the day the preliminary ruling was announced on June 12, Dombrovskis replied to Wang in a letter, expressing the desire for both sides to strengthen dialogue to resolve the case. On June 22, Wang held a video conference with Dombrovskis, and they agreed to start negotiations on the EU's anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese EVs. Subsequently, China sent a working group to Europe for negotiations on June 23, and multiple rounds of technical consultations were held simultaneously via video. MOFCOM said that China has shown the utmost sincerity and hopes that the European side will meet China halfway, show sincerity, and push forward the negotiation process to reach a mutually acceptable solution as soon as possible. China has always believed that trade protectionist measures are not conducive to the development of global green industries and automotive industry cooperation. Efforts should be made to adhere to dialogue and cooperation to promote economic green transformation, rather than creating divisions and disrupting global industrial and supply chains, MOFCOM said. China firmly opposes any unilateralism and protectionism that politicizes and weaponizes economic and trade issues, and will take all necessary measures to defend its own interests against any abuse of rules and suppression of China, MOFCOM added.

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.

China is mulling over establishing a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) standardization technical committee under its Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), aiming to guide enterprises to enhance industrial standards and boost domestic innovation. The proposed committee, revealed by the MIIT on Monday, will work on composing a BCI standards roadmap for the entire industry development as well as the standards for the research and development of the key technologies involved, according to the MIIT. China has taken strides in developing the BCI industry over the years, not only providing abundant policy support but also generous financial investment, Li Wenyu, secretary of the Brain-Computer Interface Industrial Alliance, told the Global Times. From last year to 2024, both the central and local governments have successively issued relevant policies to support industrial development. The MIIT in 2023 rolled out a plan selecting and promoting a group of units with strong innovation capabilities to break through landmark technological products and accelerate the application of new technologies and products. The Beijing local government also released an action plan to accelerate the industry in the capital (2024-2030) this year. In 2023, there were no fewer than 20 publicly disclosed financing events for BCI companies in China, with a total disclosed amount exceeding 150 million yuan ($20.6 million), Li said. “The strong support from the government has injected momentum into industrial innovation.” The fact that China's BCI industry started later than Western countries such as the US is a reality, leading to the gap in China regarding technological breakthroughs, industrial synergy, and talent development, according to Li. To further close gaps and solve bottlenecks in BCI industrial development, Li suggested that the industry explore various technological approaches to suit different application scenarios and encourage more medical facilities powered by BCI to initiate clinical trials by optimizing the development of BCI-related ethics. Additionally, he highlighted that standard development is one of the aspects to enhance the overall level and competitiveness of the industry chain, which could, in turn, empower domestic BCI innovation. While China's BCI technology generally lags behind leading countries like the US in terms of system integration and clinical application, this has not hindered the release of Neucyber, which stands as China's first "high-performance invasive BCI." Neucyber, an invasive implanted BCI technology, was independently developed by Chinese scientists from the Chinese Institute for Brain Research in Beijing. Li Yuan, Business Development Director of Beijing Xinzhida Neurotechnology, the company that co-developed this BCI system, told the Global Times that the breakthrough of Neucyber could not have been achieved without the efforts of the institute gathering superior resources from various teams in Beijing. A group of mature talents were gathered within the institute, from specific fields involving electrodes, chips, algorithms, software, and materials, Li Yuan said. Shrugging off the outside world's focus on China’s competition with the US in this regard, Li Yuan said her team doesn’t want to be imaginative and talk too much, but strives to produce a set of products step by step that can be useful in actual applications. In addition, Li Wenyu also attributed the emergence of Neucyber to the independent research atmosphere and the well-established talent nurturing mechanism in the Chinese Institute for Brain Research. He said that to advance China’s BCI industry, it is necessary not only to cultivate domestic talents but also to introduce foreign talents to enhance China's research and innovation capabilities. The proposed plan for establishing the BCI standardization technical committee under the MIIT will solicit public opinions until July 30, 2024.

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

According to AndroidAuthority, the Linux kernel used by Android devices is mostly derived from Google's Android Universal Kernel (ACK) branch, which is created from the Android mainline kernel branch when new LTS versions are released upstream. For example, when kernel version 6.6 is announced as the latest LTS release, an ACK branch for Android15-6.6 appears shortly after, with the "android15" in the name referring to the Android version of the kernel (in this case, Android 15). Google maintains its own set of LTS kernel branches for three main reasons. First, Google can integrate upstream features that have not yet been released into the ACK branch by backporting or picking, so as to meet the specific needs of Android. Second, Google can include some features that are being developed upstream in the ACK branch ahead of time, making it available for Android devices as early as possible. Finally, Google can add some vendor or original equipment manufacturer (OEM) features for other Android partners to use. Once created, Google continues to update the ACK branch to include not only bug fixes for Android specific code, but also to integrate the LTS merge content of the upstream kernel branch. For example, the Linux kernel vulnerability disclosed in the July 2024 Android security bulletin will be fixed through these updates. However, it is not easy to distinguish a bug fix from other bug fixes, as a patch that fixes a bug may also accidentally plug a security vulnerability that the submitter did not know about or chose not to disclose. Google does its best to recognize this, but it inevitably misses the mark, resulting in bug fixes for the upstream Linux kernel being released months before Android devices. As a result, Google has been urging Android vendors to regularly update the LTS kernel to avoid being caught off guard by unexpectedly disclosed security vulnerabilities. Clearly, the LTS version of the Linux kernel is critical to the security of Android devices, helping Google and vendors deal with known and unknown security vulnerabilities. The longer the support period, the more timely security updates Google and vendors can provide to devices.