Even though a decade has passed, Grace Jessica can still vividly recall the moment when she read about Chinese President Xi Jinping's proposal on the "Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)" made during his visit to the Indonesian parliament in the newspaper. She referred to it as a crucial moment for herself because, since then, she has sensed Indonesia's increasing desire to connect with China, just like many other developing countries. From that moment on, her curiosity about China began to grow.
Almost a decade on, in 2019, Jessica, as a fresh university graduate, took a job as an assistant director at the Tegalluar Station, the end point of recently unveiled Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway (HSR) line, a landmark project under the China-proposed BRI. Her participation in such an important national infrastructure project has become a point of pride for her family, and has made her a celebrity among Indonesian people.
"For us, mentioning China means 'more bridges, more roads, and more opportunities.' The rise of China is marked by its increasingly strong economic power, which is reflected in visible and usable roads and bridges," said Jessica.
Jessica's summary of China is a microcosm of what China represents in the minds of many young people, especially Gen-Zers in Southeast Asian countries.
In a recent visit to Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, it was evident to the Global Times that despite West-led chatter and misinformation regarding China, many in these Southeast Asia countries have a rational understanding of China. They see more of China's friendliness, its mutual benefit philosophy, and positive regional influence rather than as an alleged threat.
Embracing China means embracing hope
Unlike previous generations, the younger generation in many Southeast Asian countries positively views China's market and technological strength. Jessica told the Global Times that Indonesians see better career development opportunities through the BRI. "I see embracing China as embracing hope both personally and nationally. The BRI infrastructure project in Indonesia means shorter distances to reunite with family, national pride, and expectations for rapid development."
Gen-Zer Rizka Anggraini, a provincial top scorer in Indonesian national exam from South Sumatra Province, Indonesia, shares the same viewpoint. After graduating from high school, she applied for a Chinese government scholarship and chose to study in China instead of traditionally popular Western countries. Even before graduating, she had secured a place at a Chinese state-owned enterprise investing in energy projects in Indonesia. Some of her friends envy her proficiency in Chinese and her background of studying in China, which means a future income, especially as Chinese companies gradually expand their presence in Indonesia.
In February, the ASEAN Studies Centre of the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore released "The State of Southeast Asia: 2023 Survey Report," showing that China continues to be seen as the most influential economic (59.9 percent) and political-strategic (41.5 percent) power in the region. In comparison, the percentage of respondents who believed that "the US has the greatest influence" in these two areas were 10.5 percent and 31.9 percent respectively.
Another survey by Pew in 2022 showed similar trends, as a median of 66 percent across 19 countries believe that China's influence on the world stage is growing stronger, while just 32 percent say the same about the US. In each country surveyed, more than half of adults say China's influence in the world is strengthening.
The expansion of this influence is driven by the increasing presence of Chinese brands and China's burgeoning soft power on the global stage.
Soft power promotes people-to-people ties
When journalists from the Global Times interviewed young people on the streets of Bangkok, Thailand, and asked what they were most interested in about China, their answers were mostly Chinese idols and TV dramas, Chinese cuisine, and "Made in China" products.
In many Southeast Asia cities, Mixue, a Chinese store chain offering fresh ice cream and tea, for example, has become trendy on social media platforms. Social media users post about their daily cravings for Mixue products and make jokes and memes. Global Times reporters can often see the queue at the door of its shops.
Not only are Chinese brands popular in Thailand, but in 2020, Super Poll, a pollster in Thailand, conducted a survey on the "Sino-Thai friendship during the pandemic." In response to the question of "who is Thailand's closest friend during the pandemic," 73.3 percent of the respondents chose China, while Japan, the European Union, and the US were chosen by 8 percent, 4.4 percent, and 3.4 percent respectively. Noppadol, the head of Super Poll, stated that the survey shows the trust that Thai people have in China.
The Global Times' visit to the Confucius Institute at the Chulalongkorn University revealed that in Thailand, Chinese has gradually replaced Japanese as the second-largest foreign language after English, which reflects young people's increasing enthusiasm for Chinese and interest in China.
When discussing the impressions of young Malaysians toward China, former Malaysian ambassador to China Dato Abdul Majid emphasizes a division between them - those who have traded with or visited China usually hold a more positive perception, while those who have never been to China and only learn about the country from the media do not have a true understanding of the real China.
Majid hopes for more opportunities for communication to allow these people to see an objective and authentic China in order to eliminate misunderstandings.
The recent 15th BRICS summit arrived at a critically significant economic and political juncture in the Arab and global history. The successful completion of the summit is a major milestone in the journey toward multipolarity; it was BRICS' most important summit since its inception in 2009. Inviting three Arab nations, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to join the group has positive implications for the region and the world.
Most of the world, including the Arab world, is interested in multipolarity and multilateralism and is against protectionism and unilateralism. The region and the world are already beyond unipolarity and hegemony; they are in the process of establishing a new order, preferably through meaningful structural changes to the current security and governance architecture. Therefore, expanding BRICS to include six more nations will add impetus to the critical mass gathering behind the push for reform and change at global and sub-global levels. The expected high-level policy coordination among the BRICS+ members will facilitate the birth of multipolarity in the world, including in the Middle East.
There is no question that the Arab world is becoming one center of power in the rapidly changing world. Out of more than 40 countries that have officially applied or expressed an interest in joining, three important Arab countries have been selected to join BRICS. This demonstrates the strategic, economic and political significance of the Arabs' role in forming a new world order. In BRICS, the three Arab countries do not only represent their individual national interests, but also the aspirations of more than 450 million Arabs. Those three countries are the nucleus for Arab unity, integration and development. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been trying to rally the Arabs behind a new vision for their region and the world; they work toward uniting the Arabs as one important pole in the emerging multipolar world.
The decision to include the three Arab nations was not surprising. The UAE is one of the largest trading nations in the region and the 11th largest exporter in the world. Also, the UAE is one of the largest six oil exporters; it holds about six percent of global oil proved reserves. Saudi Arabia is the top Arab economy and the biggest oil exporter in the world, holding more than 17 percent of the world's oil-proved reserves. Saudi Arabia is a significant member of the G20 and the leader of OPEC. The Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF) of the UAE and Saudi Arabia are among the top 10 in the world. Egypt is geographically strategically located at the intersection of three continents and in the heart of global trade routes. It overlooks and administers some critically strategic waterways such as the Suez Canal, through which around 12 percent of global trade and 30 percent of global container traffic pass annually. Egypt is the most populous Arab country with high economic growth and consumer market potential. There is no doubt that the Arabs will be a net positive addition to BRICS.
The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the top three economies in the Arab world; their combined GDP is around $2 trillion. Equally important is the fact that the UAE and Saudi Arabia are among the top oil exporters; the current BRICS members such as China and India are major energy consumers and the main drivers behind global oil demand growth. Hence, having the UAE and Saudi Arabia, in addition to Russia, in the BRICS grouping will help better coordinate energy policies among some key oil producers and consumers, boding well for oil market stability and predictability.
For the Arabs, the BRICS platform provides a great opportunity to deepen and diversify their partnerships with the Global South countries which account for around 80 percent of the world's economic growth. Arab nations are gradually plugging into the new emerging economic blocs, especially those in Asia. The UAE and Egypt are already members of the BRICS' New Development Bank (NDB); Saudi Arabia is expected to join the bank soon. Arabs' top two trading partners and largest oil markets are in BRICS, namely China and India.
Between 2018 and 2022, the UAE-BRICS trade was $677 billion. In 2022, the bilateral trade between Saudi Arabia and BRICS countries exceeded $160 billion. The two Asian giants, China and India, are the key contributors to global oil demand growth just as they are the main drivers behind global economic growth. Trade between the Arabs and BRICS countries is expected to grow even more in the coming years. China and India are expected to remain the main oil markets for the Arabs in the foreseeable future. These trends are not expected to change any time soon.
The Arabs are acutely aware that the current fluid regional and global landscape presents a myriad of opportunities and challenges. Geopolitically, the Arabs understand that, by joining BRICS, they will have a powerful and useful platform through which they can protect their strategic autonomy and sovereignty, while contributing to shaping the future of their region and the world. Although BRICS has focused primarily on economics so far, the fast-changing and increasingly complex world requires it to tackle subjects beyond the realm of economics. Some key BRICS members are also included in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which is mainly about security. The work of the two groups dovetails nicely together; the three invited Arab nations are already involved in SCO as Dialogue Partners. Perhaps, soon, the work of the two groups will be synergized so that the members can discuss and deal with issues more holistically.
As BRICS becomes more institutionalized and as strategic coordination among its partners becomes more effective, the group is expected to be a stronger advocate of multilateralism and a real force behind the push for a renewed world system. All BRICS countries, including those who have just been invited, have been on the receiving end of destructive unilateralism and protectionism. Therefore, they all know the harmful impact of unilateral and protectionist policies and actions. However, for the common prosperity of most humanity, the BRICS countries are expected to boost global multilateralism and multipolarity in various areas, including but not limited to economics, diplomacy, culture, politics, technology and conflict resolution.
The large number of countries interested in joining BRICS proves that the group is growing in influence, power and attractiveness. The newly invited countries largely share the same vision for the world as that of the current BRICS nations. As outlined in the Johannesburg II Declaration, the BRICS nations want to establish a fair, equitable and balanced world order; they are against unilateralism, fragmentation, coercion and protectionism. This vision is appealing to most countries in different regions of the world. The rapidly rising momentum behind BRICS shows that there is a dire need and clear urgency for reform. The BRICS grouping is viewed as the vehicle through which the current broken global system can be improved, democratized and fixed.
BRICS is proving that it is not all bark and no bite. More than 45 percent of the global population, 30 percent of global GDP, and more than 40 percent of global oil production are included in BRICS+; no other grouping or gathering has such a massive heft.
The world is in transition; it is slowly but steadily moving toward deeper, yet to be institutionalized, multipolarity. The expanded BRICS is expected to accelerate global multipolarity and enhance multilateralism. The Arabs are confidently carving out an important place for themselves in the new emerging world. This is truly a historic moment for the Arabs and the Global Majority; they must rise to the occasion, take their fate in their own hands, and shape the future.
Over the past decade, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), following the guiding principle of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, has grown into a global platform where countries along the route work together to promote people's well-being and give a further boost to global development amid daunting challenges. As the BRI celebrates its 10th anniversary, Global Times reporters Xia Wenxin and Lin Xiaoyi interviewed former officials and diplomats from three Eurasia countries - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Belarus - to learn about the cooperation under the BRI over the past 10 years in their respective countries and their expectations for the initiative's future.
Bolat Nurgaliyev, chairman of the board of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and former secretary-general of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
I remember when President Xi was presenting his vision for the Silk Road Economic Belt in Kazakhstan. Although it was in its initial stage at the time, it was received very positively here in Kazakhstan and among the potential participants of the initiative, because it was seen as the invitation for cooperation.
Having served in China and understanding how seriously this kind of initiative is being prepared, I expected the BRI to be implemented stage by stage, with the involvement of all potential participants depending on the terms and benefits generated. 10 years later, the initiative has met my initial expectations in every aspect.
The circle of the participating states in the BRI is expanding. The initial focus of the BRI was on the immediate neighborhood - Asia, specifically. Now, we see that it is expanding beyond Asia, to Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. The wide participation in the BRI is a clear indication that everybody sees it as a win-win situation, and together we can set ambitious goals and achieve them on the strong foundation of China's economic success. The BRI is truly a global initiative.
Saidmukhtar Saidkasimov, president of the University of World Economy and Diplomacy and former Uzbek deputy prime minister
It is no exaggeration to say the initiative proposed by President Xi 10 years ago generated tremendous interest around the world from the very beginning. It was not only a very bold, unprecedented large-scale interregional project, but also has gained wide attention mainly because of its practical and applicable orientation, covering all the direct economic interests and benefits of many countries.
For the first time in history, an unprecedented plan for the formation and development of an interconnected transportation infrastructure across the entire Eurasian continent was presented. Its implementation truly opened up broad prospects for the creation of a fundamentally new transport configuration across the vast expanse of our planet.
From the very beginning, Uzbekistan was one of the first countries to highly appreciate and support the BRI for many reasons. On the one hand, the idea of active trade permeates the entire centuries-old history of our region. Uzbekistan and Central Asia have had practical trade relations with the whole of Eurasia for many years. On the other hand, geographically, Central Asia has been the center, the main route of the legendary Silk Road for centuries, being a strategically important trade hub.
The idea of reuniting peoples and countries of Eurasia into a single belt of mutually beneficial cooperation was proclaimed by China, where the Silk Road historically originated. China itself demonstrates to the world a great example of successful social development. In a historically short period, a huge number of Chinese people were able to get rid of poverty and backwardness and achieve a fairly high level of development. This achievement of the Chinese people is a rare and unique phenomenon in world history.
Anatoly Tozik, chairman of the Belarusian-Chinese Friendship Society and former deputy prime minister of Belarus
The Republic of Belarus was one of the first countries to support the BRI. The development of cooperation with China in all areas without exception fully meets the strategic national interests of Belarus, and participation in the BRI implementation offers significant opportunities for Belarus.
This, in particular, includes our cooperation with China within the framework of the Silk Road Economic Belt, where Belarus is geographically located. Such a status makes it possible to utilize all the potential of our country in the implementation of this initiative, including trade and economic, scientific and technical, humanitarian, transport, law enforcement, and so on.
An important characteristic of the BRI is that when China invites countries to participate in this project, it does not impose any conditions or requirements. Each country has the right to determine its own format of participation in the initiative. China offers the countries along the Silk Road Economic Belt interconnection and integration projects that will help them reconcile and coordinate their development strategies, unlock the potential of regional cooperation, boost investment and consumption, create demand and jobs, and expand humanitarian exchanges between peoples and the mutual enrichment of cultures.
In Belarus, we view the BRI as an exceptionally timely proposal to the world community for a new model of international cooperation and global management. This model can serve as an alternative to the alarming phenomena and trends in the modern system of world economic relations.
A lot has been done in the past decade. But much more could and should have been done. I would very much like to believe that the global community will listen to and understand China more and join forces with it for better development.
Editor's Note: Is China-US relationship locked in an increasingly intense rivalry or is there possibly a "window of opportunity" to mend strained ties between the two countries? A number of recent visits to China by high-ranking US officials were made, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Climate Envoy John Kerry, and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. Veteran US diplomat Henry Kissinger also visited China in July. Where is the China-US relationship headed as high-level interactions increase? Einar Tangen (Tangen), a senior fellow of the Beijing-based think tank Taihe Institute, founder and chairman of China Cities Bluebook Consulting and former chairman of the State of Wisconsin's International Trade Council, shared his insights with Global Times (GT) reporter Li Aixin, during the 7th Taihe Civilizations Forum held on Tuesday.
GT: How would you comment on the recent series of visits by US officials and veteran US diplomat? What message did they convey? Tangen: You have to separate Henry Kissinger from the other four. The administration people simply came to "gaslight" China. Kissinger was at the signing of the Three Communiqués – he is a living reminder that the US agreed to one-China policy. His hope, like the hope of all rational people, is that an armed conflict can be avoided. The other four were part of, in essence, a "gaslighting" operation. Publicly declaring a desire to engage with China while engaging in hostile acts – military provocations in the Taiwan Straits, the South China Seas, anti-China congressional and the administration acts and statements… But, you can't expect someone to want to talk with you, if you keep slapping them.
GT: Will these visits make any difference to the US' China policy? Tangen: No. The major issue is the Biden administration's lack of a China, or for that matter an international, strategy. Containing China is not a strategy and it isn't working. China continues to forge ahead, for example, pioneering new methods that can replace silicon with gallium, which would revolutionize chip design, capabilities, and fabrication. Another example is the Huawei Mate 60 phone, which is using a 7 nanometer chip which allows it to equal Apple's iPhone. If the intent was to contain China, US policy is actually working in reverse. We live in an interconnected global supply chain, where progress and prices come from research, competition, and efficiency. China has for the last eight years led the world in the installation of industrial robots, is leading the world in making its industries cost competitive, as domestic wages rates rise, by instituting Industry 4.0 systems. In such a world the US, instead of competing, seems intent on spreading uncertainty, strife, and Inflation, in an awkward attempt to maintain its hegemony, in a world that is already multipolar.
GT: Will Huawei's case impact the US policy of decoupling with and suppressing China? Tangen: I doubt it. Washington is gripped by a national hysteria, similar to what it experienced under former senator Joe McCarthy. If anyone says anything good or neutral about China, talks about rational policy or realities, they are labeled "panda huggers" who can't be trusted. Today, being Asian subjects you automatically to suspicion and increases your chances of being racially profiled, as well as verbally and physically attacked. Every Asian in government and academia is being viewed as a potential spy. Asian students aren't allowed to enroll in hard science courses. All of this under the pretext of national security. Where there have been trials, the government has lost the overwhelming number of cases, as with the numerous cases where academics have been accused of spying. The result, a growing outflow of Chinese scientists and executives, leaving the US, as Asian students look elsewhere for advanced education. The US is a nation racked by poverty, homelessness, crime, gun violence, political polarity, and racism. For those seeking the American Dream, the reality has become disappointing. In cases of Asian hate crimes, which increased 342 percent in 2021, according to a nationwide study by California State University in San Bernardino, Washington's standard response, decry the violence, but continue the anti-Asian rhetoric that fans it. As Huawei has shown, investing in people, processes, and competition, is more effective than efforts to decouple/de-risk/suppress.
GT: Some observers tend to think the period from now until November is a "window of opportunity" for the recovery of China-US relations. What's your take on this?
Tangen: I can't see a window, domestic politics is, as always, front and center for Biden. He is focused almost exclusively on next year's election. Staying in power is the objective, governing is a sideline.
Since taking office as president, he has not been able to unify the country, or even follow through on his campaign issues. He criticized Donald Trump for his unilateral imposed tariffs, but has kept many of them in place, despite saying they were hurting the American people more than Chinese businesses.
He hasn't created a workable policy toward China. He hasn't been able to articulate a global vision, unless repeating Donald Trump's America First is a global vision. The world is not safer today than it was when Trump left office.
His idea of global diplomacy, is using India's chairing of the G20 to water down any criticisms against the US for: broken climate change funding promises, undermining the WTO, inaction on global health, poverty, debt and development issues. India got agreements on outstanding WTO cases the US had brought, an India-US joint venture military jet engine factory, and support for an India-Europe transportation corridor, which the US Congress would never fund, while the US turned a blind eye on Kashmir, corruption, the caste system, and human rights.
For example, instead of a strong statement on the trail of broken developed country promises to deliver 100 billion a year for developing world climate mitigation, there was a statement that there would be an effort to triple the amount of renewable energy. Ironically, a policy, if followed through, would favor China, since China is the dominant force in those industries.
The announcement of the new transportation corridor (the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor) as a competitor to the Belt and Road Initiative is laughable.
The BRI has been around for 10 years, it has demonstrated its resolve with a trillion dollar's worth of investments in projects that according to The Chartered Institute of Building, the BRI will boost world GDP by over $7 trillion per annum by 2040.
The Biden Administration's idea, developed last October, after criticizing the BRI as a waste of resources aimed at "debt-trap diplomacy," was to connect Europe to India, as a competitor to China’s BRI.
Question is, in an increasingly isolationist Congress, how would Biden be able to get funding for a project that has nothing to do with Making America Great.
It is true, as the presidential election gets closer, Biden would like to have some sort of temporary economic rapprochement with China if it could improve the domestic economic situation. The obvious choice would be to remove Trump's economic tariffs, but he is afraid of being labeled "soft on China", so it is doubtful he will pull the trigger.
The main difficulty is there is no coherent China engagement policy, just an emotional desire to contain it. As we all know, it's hard to adjust feelings.
GT: After G20, Biden paid a short visit to Vietnam, where he said US outreach to Vietnam is not about containing China. Did he mean it?
Tangen: It's difficult to know what Biden means when he talks. He constantly says he's not trying to contain China, that he adheres to the Three Communiques, and the “one-China” policy, but he has said four times that he would support Taiwan island militarily if force was used to unite the breakaway province.
Actually, Biden says many things the White House says he doesn't mean. Quite frankly, in the US, as well as internationally, there are concerns about what he means, as the White House seems to continually reinterpret whatever he says.
The irony with Vietnam is the US waged a brutal war that resulted in millions of civilian and military deaths, millions of tons of bombs, massive areas deforested by Agent Orange, and unexploded ordnance, like cluster bombs, which continue to kill and maim civilians to this day.
Vietnam is run by the Communist Party that drove the US out of their lands. Biden's pitch is we don't like Communist China, we want to ally with Vietnam, a Communist country, against your neighboring Communist country, because they don't share our values.
It doesn't make any sense, but the Vietnamese, for their part, are happy to take whatever they can get and thumb their noses at the US as they continue negotiating arms deals with Russia.
On a larger level, this has become a prevalent pattern. India was able to obtain concessions from the US, while not joining in on trade sanctions and outright condemnation of Russia over Ukraine, in fact India is now the largest importer of Russian oil, which ironically, they buy cheap and then sell to Europe. India continues to use the Russian S-400 missile system, as well as numerous armaments and other weapons systems, while also getting US jet engines and weapons systems.
South Africa has been more than willing to vocalize its amused contempt for Washington's attempts at coercion. Saudi Arabia has followed its own economic interests, when it comes to oil supplies and pricing. But, both countries continue to maintain cordial diplomatic relationships with Washington.
GT: Do you think there is still a cure or a key to resolving the strained China-US ties?
Tangen: The key is for Washington to recognize that the days of its hegemony have gone, replaced by a multipolar world, but that is something that the current Washington elites are incapable of doing. Therefore, change will have to come from the American public, the voters.
Why would the American public want change, because about five decades ago the middle class accounted for 62 percent of the US population, today, it is only 50 percent. Inflation is decreasing real wages month by month, consumer debt is higher than it has ever been, loan defaults are skyrocketing, about 60 percent of consumers live paycheck to paycheck, and 40 percent don't have $400 in case of an emergency, small business are reigning in their investments. Meanwhile, the Fed continues to raise interest rates, oblivious to the fact that the inflation is coming from service side wage increases, which continue to increase.
It will be up to the American people to reverse the course, because the elites in Washington have it firmly in their mind that China is the enemy, and that every problem in the US is China's fault, even if, like the ever growing deficit, it is a domestic issue of poor governance.
In the end, governments are measured in terms of how they take care of their people. The first role of government is to provide a safe, orderly environment. In this the US failed. It is now commonplace for those in government to say, "Buy a gun, because we can't protect you, you have to protect yourselves." You see the shootings in schools and workplaces, on the streets, in shopping malls and people's homes. You see videos of shoplifters brazenly robbing stores, drug addicts, beggars, mentally ill, and homeless, living on the streets. Crime has become an epidemic.
The second duty of government is to provide opportunity. Education, a social safety net and policies that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, fair legal systems, a government that can regulate, without smothering, these are elements of what is needed to create opportunities. Right now though, the US isn't providing what is needed, (but is providing) too big to fail industry oligarchs, a massive and growing national debt, under-funded education, cuts to social welfare, overly expensive healthcare, social and political divisions, international policies that are closing rather than opening markets, and are making investment abroad more uncertain.
Examples of unsustainable and lost opportunities: TSMC has said a chip made in Taiwan will be 30 percent less expensive than the same chip made in an American factory. Actions to prevent the sale of computer chips and chip making equipment are closing the Chinese market, which is one third of the world market, to US companies. Bans on US investments in Chinese companies means they won't be able to participate in China's innovation and general economic rise.
So, while the US cites capitalism, open markets and competition, Washington doesn't accept the realities of what this means, if it doesn't benefit the US.
Washington's real problems are domestic, they are tied to its development and governance models, China is just a convenient scapegoat for issues the US refuses to address.
At the invitation of Secretary Nikolai Patrushev of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Wang Yi, member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the CPC Central Committee, is visiting Russia from September 18 to 21 and attending the 18th round of China-Russia strategic security consultation. Since the establishment of the China-Russia strategic security consultation mechanism in 2005, initiated by the leaders of the two countries, consultations are held annually in principle, though the dates are flexible. This is an example of high-level communication mechanisms between China and Russia, and there are many similar mechanisms.
What is the focus of this consultation? This question has garnered extensive attention in the current exceptionally complex international environment, which includes the long-standing Ukraine crisis, unusual actions of the US, Japan, and South Korea in the Northeast Asia region, the collective rise of emerging economies demanding a more just and equitable international order, and more. In many of these areas, China and Russia, as two major global powers, play pivotal roles. In a certain sense, the China-Russia relationship will fundamentally influence peace and stability not only in the region but also the entire international community.
This consultation, which took place immediately after Wang's multiple rounds of meetings with US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in Malta on September 16 and 17, has attracted more attention from Western media, leading to various interpretations. However, many of these interpretations are distorted and biased. For example, some Western media outlets have seized upon the coincidental timing of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's recent visit to Russia and Wang's trip to Russia for the strategic security consultations as fodder for promoting a "China-Russia-North Korea axis." This is a typical narrative of a "new cold war," and it is necessary to set the record straight on this matter.
China-Russia relations have been seriously stigmatized by Western media, and this has become an increasingly apparent and clear part of Western countries' public opinion strategy or cognitive warfare. They aim to portray China, Russia, and other countries like North Korea, which face containment and suppression from the West, as a collective "axis of power" that threatens the so-called "free world." Within this narrative framework, every interaction between China and Russia, China and North Korea, Russia and North Korea, and related countries is branded as part of an effort to establish and strengthen this "axis," as if every interaction is a conspiracy against the US. This is a psychological illness. The root of the problem lies in Washington's attempt to introduce a "new cold war" into Northeast Asia. As a result, it feels insecure and tries to project its own actions onto others, leading to absurd conclusions.
International perception may be temporarily confused by noise, but one fact that is not hidden is that we are described as "an axis," "a group," or "an alliance." This definition is fundamentally different from the real relationship between China and Russia, or China and North Korea. China pursues an independent and peaceful foreign policy, emphasizing "partnership rather than alliance" in its diplomatic relations. It also practices comprehensive diplomacy, aiming to peacefully coexist and achieve win-win cooperation with all countries in the world. Whether it is China's attitude toward Russia or the US, it has always been consistent and stable, which is to engage with others with the utmost goodwill and sincerity for cooperation. Currently, the US and a few Western countries are strengthening their group politics and engaging in camp confrontation. In order to justify and legitimize this behavior that is unpopular in the international community, they are attempting to create an opposing group, and the media has acted as the vanguard.
Chinese diplomacy firmly opposes such stigmatization and demonization. Meanwhile, we steadfastly promote relations with any friendly country toward China, especially the China-Russia relationship, and will not be constrained by external malicious rhetoric. The comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era between China and Russia has a strong internal driving force. The complex changes in the international situation and pattern serve as the external environment for strengthening strategic coordination and practical cooperation between China and Russia. The stable, predictable, and continuously advancing China-Russia relationship is important for both countries and the world.
Chinese diplomacy is willing to devote more energy and resources to strengthen, consolidate, and further develop bilateral relationships with certainty, such as the China-Russia relationship. Both China and Russia are major countries with strong strategic autonomy, and their interactions are open and aboveboard, which will by no means succumb to Washington's influence. It is advised that those who are busy speculating on "secret deals" between China and Russia should spend some time understanding what the interaction between major countries should actually be like, rather than engaging in various assumptions.
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is currently in session, gathering all approximately 190 member states to address critical global issues and matters concerning each member state. UNGA serves as the most representative voice of the global international community, with developing countries, or member states of the Global South, holding a significant numerical advantage.
The concept of the "Global South" is a relatively recent phenomenon that encompasses all developing countries, including what were previously referred to as emerging markets. In a sense, it stands in contrast to the developed north, or the developed world, predominantly comprising OECD member states, for instance.
However, there is a danger that the US sometimes categorizes China as a developed country, artificially and arbitrarily, suggesting that China should not be considered part of the Global South. In reality, China is a vital member of the Global South and represents the fundamental interests of developing countries worldwide in many ways.
Given the substantial numerical advantage of the Global South, I believe the US and developed countries can't dominate the UNGA. The US may do whatever it wants, for example, to attempt to hijack the agenda or promote its own topics. However, members of the Global South possess independent perspectives and can formulate their own conclusions. They will genuinely champion issues they care about and vigorously defend their legitimate interests, which may not align with the interests promoted by the US or the developed countries as a group. The separate agenda pursued by the US differs significantly from the challenges and opportunities faced by developing countries. The US prioritizes "America First" and sometimes discriminates against other states, particularly countries in the Global South, or is unwilling to promote the legitimate interests of developing countries worldwide.
The reason why Western-led groups struggle to address concerns of countries in the Global South, such as climate change and other issues, primarily lies in the fundamental contrast in interests between developed countries and the developing world, or the Global South. For instance, when it comes to climate change, what China emphasizes is on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. This means that humanity should collectively address the climate crisis with a shared goal and unwavering commitment. Given that developed countries have collectively contributed significantly more to pollution than any of the developing world's members, it is completely reasonable that they contribute more to assist the international community in mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change. However, many developed countries are coming up with all sorts of excuses to delay their so-called commitments or even cancel their obligations.
One of the dilemmas facing humanity is that while China is very eager to promote peace, stability, development and poverty alleviation, not only within its borders but globally, the US appears committed to fostering a cold war mentality, dividing countries into opposing blocs, and even using the threat of war as a means to achieve political goals that they cannot attain through other means.
For example, it is evident that the US has important plans for India. It attempts to bind India onto the bandwagon of the US with their anti-China policy and hostility toward China. However, decision-makers in Washington may have seriously misjudged India's commitment to foreign policy independence as a great and proud nation. India stands as one of the world's great nations, with a rich history of civilization that has endured for millennia. Looking ahead, India's population is projected to be the largest globally for many decades to come. This reality carries great expectations that India will do the right thing in promoting peace, stability and cooperation rather than betting on a cold war or hot war, or giving up its independence to align its fate with countries like the US.
From the Chinese perspective, we do not want to compete with anyone. We just want to promote the merits of countries, do the right thing and advocate for globalization, fair trade, unrestricted exchange of goods, services, ideas and people across national boundaries. China respects all countries as equals, regardless of their size, rather than manhandling them.
Humanity stands at a significant crossroads, facing the choice between peace, stability and development, or the path of war, confrontation and conflict. China will continue to do what it believes to be right and promote the legitimate interests, not only of China but also of Global South member states in general. I hope that UNGA will serve as a crucial platform for countries from various perspectives to express their views and that any conflicts of interest can be peacefully resolved through diplomacy rather than escalating tensions to the point of no return.
The Biden administration kicked off a second summit with Pacific island leaders on Monday and it has made no secret of its desire to confront and compete with China for influence in the South Pacific region. The primary objective for the US in this summit is to counter and weaken China's collaboration with South Pacific countries. This narrow-minded motive reflects the US' hegemonic mind-set and also reveals a lack of respect toward the nations in the South Pacific.
Western media bluntly stated that the summit is "part of a U.S. charm offensive to block further Chinese inroads into a strategic region Washington has long considered its own backyard." The main purpose of the US hosting this summit is to prevent China's increasing influence in the South Pacific region. Since China signed a regional security agreement with the Solomon Islands last year, the US has particularly paid increasing attention to the South Pacific region. The US' focus on Pacific island countries is to counter China, rather than genuinely offering support to regional development, a mentality that's filled with arrogance.
At the same time, the US' attention is pretentious as the US only makes empty promises. During the previous US-Pacific Island Forum Leader's Summit, the US proposed to provide $810 million in aid. However, to this day, the $810 million from the US has not been approved by Congress. Zhou Fangyin, professor at the Guangdong Research Institute for International Strategies, told the Global Times that the US government is facing a shutdown next week, this means that it will be difficult for any economic assistance promised by the US to Pacific island countries to be fulfilled.
For Pacific island countries, their greatest concerns are climate change, economic development, and social stability. In these aspects, China upholds "four full respects" and mutually beneficial cooperation with South Pacific countries. In contrast, the US, under the guise of aid, actually promotes its own ideology and attempts to drag the region into its anti-China alliance, turning Pacific island countries into US pawns.
The US has long neglected the South Pacific region. In recent years, as China's cooperation with the South Pacific region has strengthened, its mutually beneficial cooperation has been welcomed by the governments and peoples of the Pacific island countries. However, the US perceives this as a threat and a challenge to its hegemonic status, thus increasing its attention on the region. The US is desperately trying to regain its influence in the South Pacific region. Chen Hong, executive director at the Asia Pacific Studies Centre of East China Normal University, told the Global Times that the US' attempt to woo and coerce Pacific island countries reflects a narrow-minded motive. The more the US promotes its "cooperation with these countries," the more it highlights the weakness and fragility of their relationship.
Zhou said that the US hopes to include Pacific island countries in its Indo-Pacific strategy, but these countries do not want to take sides in the competition between China and the US. Being involved in the competition led by the US brings no benefits to Pacific island countries. Despite the US' strategic layout against China, its guiding ideology is flawed, as it disregards the interests and dignity of local countries in order to maintain its own hegemony. Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and Vanuatu Prime Minister Sato Kilman reportedly will not attend the summit. The absence of the two prime ministers can be seen as representing the sentiment of Pacific island country leaders, which is a rejection of US' selfishness.
As voices from the West continue to dominate global public opinion, it is high time for developing countries to speak louder in the international arena. In a recent email interview, Margarita Simonyan (Simonyan), editor-in-chief of RT, shared with Global Times (GT) reporters Wang Wenwen and Xia Wenxin how media outlets from countries, such as Russia and China, have challenged the West's monopoly on global public opinion by offering alternative voices as well as her personal experiences and RT's development since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war.
GT: US media often describe you as the Kremlin's loyal propagandist. What do you think of such a label?
Simonyan: The US media and American broader socio-political establishment have long been "partial" to RT in general and to my person in particular - the US' 2017 national intelligence report on Russia's influence alone cited me no less than 27 times within essentially half of the report dedicated to our news network. I am proud to carry the voice of Russia abroad, in however small or large capacity, and I am glad if this voice resonates with a wide international audience.
GT: Your new book Whirlpool, a collection of short stories, recently got published. What's it about? What do you want to convey to readers?
Simonyan: In my new book I'm paying homage to the great tradition of Russian psychological prose by highlighting vivid sketches of life. Hopefully, the readers will experience a slice of life in Russia that rarely appears on the front pages of newspapers or on TV screens, and perhaps find a universal connection to these very personal stories.
GT: Recently, there was a failed assassination attempt against you. What do you think of the fact that a media figure could be the target in a conflict?
Simonyan: As a matter of fact there have been two; as journalists, we know and accept these risks, whether we are reporting from the front lines or the studio headquarters. That is our job, our duty - to tell the world the truth about the most dangerous places and events. At the end of the day we are all mortal; for me, to die for telling the truth, for defending your Motherland, is a far less frightening fate than a slow death from an incurable disease or a life of shame for something like treason.
GT: Russian and Western media have different angles and narratives when reporting the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Do you find it difficult to make Western audiences believe that RT's reports are objective?
Simonyan: I believe that the truth always wins in the end, as long as someone keeps telling it. Every day we work, we fight for the truth, for people around the world to see what is happening in reality, on the ground in Ukraine. We have known for years that these audiences have long stopped believing the narratives sold to them by their mainstream media - which is why they have tuned in to RT in the first place, years ago - because we showed their reality better than their own channels. These audiences are now finding every way possible to continue to access RT on TV, online, and on social media in the territories where RT has been banned.
GT: Not long after the Russia-Ukraine conflict, RT America was shut down. The EU also suspended RT and Sputnik on the grounds that Russia was engaging in a "systematic, international campaign of media manipulation and distortion of facts." What do you think of such moves?
Simonyan: Western establishments have been distorting the facts about what is going on in Ukraine for a decade. They tried to silence RT for years before the Special Military Operation because they couldn't let their audiences decide for themselves what to believe about events in Ukraine, in Russia, around the world and in their own backyards. This is why they implemented any way possible, including illegal and illegitimate, to shut us down and shut us out wherever they could.
By banning RT, the facade of free press in Europe and the US completely crumbled. During all this time nobody had pointed to a single grain of evidence that what RT has reported or continues to report, is not true. Instead, what the members of the Western establishments have said is that what RT brings to its audience is not allowed in their supposedly free media environment. When it comes to the Russian voice, or just a different perspective from theirs, it is simply not allowed to exist.
GT: Both Chinese and Russian media encounter such challenges when they try to expand international influence. How do you view Western dominance of discourse power and how should Chinese and Russian media deal with such challenges?
Simonyan: It is difficult to overestimate how important it is for Russian and Chinese media to work together in the international news space. It is simply a matter of survival of Russian and Chinese voices on a global stage. We are virtually alone in confronting the most powerful army of Western mainstream journalism, and such dominance makes for a dangerous, bellicose world.
We are proud that RT is available in Chinese on popular Chinese social media platforms - Weibo, Bilibili, and Douyin. RT's Weibo account is well ahead of AFP, Financial Times, Associated Press and BBC in terms of audience engagement and follower growth rate.
GT: What do you think of the current Sinophobia and Russophobia in the US?
Simonyan: There has hardly been a period in US history when the American establishment and society at large haven't had some sort of phobia of this kind. From the Salem witch hunts and the persecution of Native Americans to the lynchings of Black Americans by the Ku Klux Klan and the communist scare during McCarthyism — the forces governing American society have always needed someone to turn their anger on, to pin the blame for all the sins and with whom to fight directly, indirectly or in a hybrid warfare. Today's Russophobia and Sinophobia are not much different from classic racism and fascism.
GT: Most American media is not owned by the government. But the US media speaks with one voice on major international affairs. Why? How do American politicians influence and even manipulate the media?
Simonyan: Indeed, it is very telling that American news media, public and private alike, with its thousands of outlets - print, TV, online - speak with a single voice when it comes to American foreign policy. Former White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, got her own TV show on a major channel, MSNBC, within weeks of leaving her government job. Various US government departments openly and proudly cooperate with Hollywood film and TV productions, such as Top Gun, when they show the US military in a good light. Despite their claims to the contrary, the lines between American political and media establishments aren't just blurred - they do not exist.
On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative(BRI), China's State Council Information Office released a White Paper titled "The Belt and Road Initiative: A Key Pillar of the Global Community of Shared Future" on October 10. The white paper comprehensively reviews and summarizes the development process of the BRI over the past 10 years, from its inception as a Chinese initiative to its international implementation, showcasing tangible achievements. It can be said that the white paper serves as both a report card for the past decade and a grand blueprint for the future of the Belt and Road cooperation.
From the visionary "freehand sketch" in its initial conception to the meticulous "fine brushwork" in its execution, the achievements of the BRI over the past 10 years have far exceeded the initial expectations. In terms of geographic scope, more than 150 countries and over 30 international organizations have joined the Belt and Road cooperation, encompassing over half of the world. In terms of the areas covered, it includes various fields such as economics, culture, and ecology.
Whether it's the "hard connectivity" of land roads and sea routes, the "soft connectivity" of cooperation in deepening rules and standards, or the "heart-to-heart connectivity" in fields like education, culture, sports, tourism, and archaeology, the BRI has woven a vast network of cooperation and mutual benefit across the globe. The white paper provides a wealth of data and examples that unquestionably demonstrate how the BRI has brought tangible benefits and dividends to the participating countries.
These achievements have been made step by step, inch by inch, by all participating countries. The BRI is a magnificent endeavor in the global concept and practice of shared development. It inevitably involves a process of continuous practical exploration, learning, summarizing, and adjustment. But even those who view the BRI through the thickest colored glasses cannot ignore or deny its influence.
If it weren't for the fact that the BRI aligns with the interests of all participating countries and even all of humanity, conforms to the laws of social development, and addresses the needs of the global economic market, it would never have come this far and wide. What exactly is the appeal of the BRI? The white paper provides a detailed and precise answer to this question through five comprehensive chapters spanning 28,000 words, which can be summarized as follows: The BRI has paved a new path for humanity to jointly achieve modernization.
To accomplish such a significant undertaking, hardships as well as twists and turns are foreseeable and inevitable. The future BRI cooperation is also unlikely to be smooth sailing, and will certainly face and overcome new difficulties, challenges, and even risks. However, with the foundation laid in the first decade, the consensus formed, and the accumulated experience, we have sufficient confidence in the increasing prosperity and broadening of BRI. In fact, the BRI cooperation has deeply embedded itself in the common destiny of humanity. In other words, the future of the BRI will reflect the common destiny of humanity.
Looking at the distribution of countries participating in the BRI, we can observe an interesting phenomenon. Developing countries hold a consistent positive attitude toward the BRI cooperation, while developed countries do not necessarily share the same sentiment. Of course, developing countries have heavier development tasks, but the BRI has never excluded any country and hopes for the participation of as many countries as possible, including developed ones.
The US also once showed interest in joining the BRI, but as the policy of containment toward China dominates in Washington, the US has instead poured cold water on and even undermined the BRI. At the same time, the US and Europe are both introducing alternative plans for BRI. From this perspective, imitation is actually the greatest affirmation. Although the BRI was proposed by China, once it was born and implemented, it belongs to the whole world, with extensive consultation, joint construction, and shared benefits. There is no need to divide it into different versions based on camps.
The future of BRI cooperation holds a lot of opportunities and requires more imagination, and it is also worth looking forward to. As the white paper points out, the BRI is a long-term, transnational and systematic global project of the 21st century and it has succeeded in taking its first step on a long journey. During these 10 years, the BRI has made many good friends around the world, and in the future, we look forward to more countries and regions joining in, making BRI cooperation a grand chorus for all of humanity.
