US-Russia talks a litmus test for Asia’s power balance – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The idea of a negotiated resolution in Ukraine has profound effects far beyond Europe, with Asia likely to experience political and economic shocks.

Regional forces from Beijing to New Delhi are reevaluating their strategies, afraid of both options and risks, as the United States and Russia work toward a possible solution as a result of discussions in Saudi Arabia.

Any political arrangement will be viewed from the perspective of China’s own geopolitical ambitions. Beijing has always engaged in a delicate balancing act throughout the conflict, establishing itself as a natural group while indirectly supporting Moscow through diplomatic and economic programmes.

A harmony deal would allow Beijing to bolster its effect in Europe while establishing a framework for its Belt and Road Initiative and its reconstruction in Ukraine.

In addition, the end of the war would allow China to reassess its position on Taiwan, especially if Washington’s target spins up to the Indo-Pacific.

How resolute will Trump be in deterring Beijing’s interests in the South China Sea and beyond if he is ready to broker a package with Putin over Ukraine?

India, however, has played an complex game of political freedom, maintaining business ties with Russia while preserving its strategic connection with the US. A resolution to the post-war pact may push New Delhi to reevaluate its power strategy.

Throughout the conflict, India has benefited from discounted Russian crude, solidifying its status as an economic pragmatic. India may reduce its privileged access to affordable assets if a peace deal allows for a standardization of business relations between Russia and the West.

However, a stable global energy market was comfortable India’s economic inflation strains and support Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s goals for sustained economic expansion.

Japan and South Korea, fervent US friends, have taken a harder line against Russia, enforcing restrictions and providing material aid to Ukraine. If Washington and Moscow reach a political deal, Tokyo and Seoul will need to tackle a difficult restructuring.

They will likely ask for assurances that any agreement with Putin won’t lead to softening their positions on local safety concerns, such as China’s confidence in maritime disputes and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

Japan, in particular, has historic territorial disputes with Russia over the Kuril Islands, and a broader melting in US-Russia relationships could provide an opening for restored conversations.

A cessation of hostilities may lessen the uncertainty in global commodities areas that has persisted since the war started, from an economic viewpoint.

Asia, as the world’s largest consumer of energy and food exports, has endured price shocks stemming from disrupted supply stores. A de-escalation may possibly help stabilize Ukraine’s grain shipments, ensuring food supplies for import-dependent countries like Indonesia and the Philippines.

Also, Asian manufacturers, especially in the silicon and defense industries, may find new trade opportunities in the rebuilding of Ukraine.

A proper resolution to the conflict could stifle South Korea’s security sector, which has already benefited from Western rearmament, as NATO-aligned nations prepare for a new deterrence era.

But, peace in Ukraine doesn’t immediately translate into greater global security. If the US and Russia reach a deal that is perceived as favoring Moscow, it might stifle regional ideologues in Asia.

Institutions in Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines will carefully watch the outcome, worried that a law of negotiations under pressure could stifle US punishment in the Pacific. China, observing the process, properly see a way to resolving its own problems through authoritarian politics rather than military clash.

There’s also the problem of local energy dynamics. If the US, under Trump’s management, shifts its focus toward local priorities and scales up engagement in Ukraine, Washington’s legitimacy in Asia may appear under renewed scrutiny.

In such a situation, Southeast Asian nations, much dependant on US protection guarantees, may bend farther toward China. Meanwhile, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ( ASEAN ) will face renewed pressure to solidify its often-fractured approach to regional security and economic integration.

Financial markets in Asia would probably react favorably to any decision, with stock indices rising in response to expectations for a stabilized global trade environment.

The continuation of business exports from Ukraine, coupled with a de-escalation of power provide concerns, may provide a much-needed boost to economic growth in important markets.

Asian markets may soon be dealing with a different kind of uncertainty, one in which regional rivalries are left to play out with fewer external constraints, if peace comes at the cost of a US retrenchment from international leadership.

A peace deal in Ukraine, then, is not just a European affair. It’s a litmus test for the strength of US alliances, the balance of power in Asia, and the strategic rigor of nations with territorial ambitions. &nbsp,

The negotiations in Riyadh may have been an opening act, but for Asia, the real drama is only beginning.

George Prior is a global political and economics expert.

Continue Reading

Fighting back against Trump’s war on global governance – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The recent actions of US President Donald Trump appear to be an attempt to reinvigorate American influence and show that the country also commands the world and is capable of deceiving other countries into doing the same.

He has criticized global cooperation by stepping down from the UN climate agreements and the World Health Organization. His organization’s representatives have also stated that they will not attend future G20 conferences because he opposes South Africa’s 2025 policy.

He has also demonstrated a lack of concern for global solidarity by halting US support initiatives and undermining efforts to keep companies truthful. He has imposed tariffs on their imports, showing his contempt for friends.

These actions call for a reply from the rest of the global community that promotes efficient management of international affairs, as well as a risk to the well-being of people and planet.

According to my analysis of global financial leadership, background can provide some guidance on how to formulate a successful response.

Such a reply ought to be based on an accurate assessment of the global forces ‘ design. It should aim to create tactical alliances between condition and non-state celebrities in both the Global South and the Global North that you come to terms with explicit and constrained goals.

This idea is exemplified by the three historical teachings that follow.

Warning classes

The second lesson is about the risks of overestimating change’s possible.

In the late 1960s and first 1970s, the US was facing domestic upheaval, including the death of prominent politicians and the death of protesting individuals, as well as the war in Vietnam.

The US was likewise losing faith in its ability to maintain the Bretton Woods conference’s global economic attempt, which it had established in 1944.

Additionally, the nations of the world west were calling for a fresh, more effective global economic system. This seemed like a reasonable need given the concerns over the US’s political and economic situation and the Russian bloc’s comparative strength at the time.

In August 1971, President Richard Nixon, without any foreign interviews, launched what became known as the Nixon Shock. He broke the connection between the US dollar and golden, putting an end to the world’s economic system established in 1944. Additionally, he added a 10 % tax to all goods into the US.

US Treasury Secretary John Connolly informed them that the money was your problem but our money when America’s Western allies protested and pressed for a secular version of the ancient economic order.

US supporters in eastern Europe, Asia, and all nations that participated in the previous Bretton Woods system were forced to accept a market-based international financial system with the US dollar as the primary currency throughout the 1970s.

The US imposed their neo-liberal monetary get on the planet, along with its allies in the north of the globe, and defeated the calls for a new one.

The next admonishing session emphasizes the value of creating strong defensive alliances. The IMF’s member states ratified an agreement in 1969 to grant the organization’s special reserve asset, specific drawing rights.

Some IMF member states were against establishing a link between growth and the special drawing rights at the time. In order to finance their advancement, those nations that require the most funding would be able to obtain more than their fair share of specific drawing rights.

All developing nations backed this need. But they don’t acknowledge on how to do it. The proposed connection between special drawing rights and creation was broken by the wealthy nations by exploiting these differences.

In consequence, all IMF member states are now allocated the particular drawing rights in accordance with their IMF limits. This implies that the richest nations receive the majority of their allocations when they do not have them and are not required to share them with developing nations.

The powerful Jubilee 2000 plan to accept the debts of low-income developing countries that are experiencing debt problems serves as a second lesson. This strategy, supported by a secretary in the United Kingdom, later involved:

  • civil society organizations and protesters in 40 states
  • a petition signed by 21 million individuals
  • institutions in both creditor and debtor locations.

Due to these work, 35 developing nations ‘ bills were eliminated. These payments, totaling about US$ 100 billion, were owed generally to bilateral and multilateral established lenders.

They also served as a demonstration of the social power that civil society organizations and institutions can produce when they work together, rich or poor.

They can make the world’s most powerful and well-off institutions and people agree to actions that benefit low-income nations and probably poor communities while also requiring them to make cheap sacrifices.

What conclusions may become drawn?

We don’t undervalue the US’s influence or the MAGA movement‘s willpower. Nonetheless, their power is not complete. As China and India acquire economic and political strength, their relative drop in US power limits it.

Additionally, there are now mechanisms for global cooperation, like the G20, where states can coordinate their actions and win defensive victories that benefit both people and the planet. However, the following may be necessary to achieve these successes:

First, the formation of military alliances that include says from both the Global South and the International North. If these says work together to achieve a set of constrained and shared goals, they can counteract Trump’s global vested interests.

Second, a unique form of public-private association where states and non-state actors agree to work together to accomplish a few specific shared goals.

In the late 1990s, neither state nor civil society organizations alone were able to overthrow the vested passions that opposed debt reduction. Collectively, they were able to sabotage effective bank interests and relieve bill for the poorest states.

Furthermore, this unique collaboration will only be possible if there is general agreement regarding both the diagnosis and the solution’s common form. This was the situation with the debt crisis in the 1990s.

For such creative activities, there are good prospects. For instance, some claims and non-state stars concur that international financial institutions must be improved and made more responsive to the requirements of those part states that actually use their services but lack the right to participate in their leadership.

Additionally, organizations must hold those who are impacted by their policies and practices responsible. They also concur that big corporations and financial organizations may be responsible for the environment and social issues as well as their fair share of taxes.

The earth must respond to Trump as soon as possible due to the urgency of the issues facing the world community. As the G20’s current chair, South Africa has a special responsibility to make sure that this year, along with its engagement groups, acts effectively and properly in terms of people and the planet.

Danny Bradlow is professor/senior studies brother, Centre for Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

Asian view on the AI Action Summit – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Most of the nation’s attention was next year’s AI Action Summit in Paris on the growing gap between US and Europe regarding AI technology versus rules.

However, the activities of several Asian nations demonstrate how the area uses a practical approach to address its problems while maximizing the economic opportunities presented by AI.

Asia’s largest locations and those most invested in the AI industry, such as Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and South Korea, joined over 100 different places in the Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable AI for Citizens &amp, the Planet.

This contract supports efforts to use AI to decrease the modern divide, promote openness and safety, influence the workplace’s future, and promote economically sustainable AI.

A prudent response to fictitious affects

However, another deal that saw less involvement from Asia was the Paris Charter on AI in the Public Interest, with just co-chair India joining 10 different members. The Charter emphasizes the importance of having access to high-quality info and that “openness in AI is mostly driven by a few actors ‘ determination to partially opened their base models.”

In order to defend the common interest, it put a strong focus on accountability and strict application of regulations.

Japan was the first Asian nation to sign the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law on the outside of the Paris AI Action Summit, in a line of sight to the rights concerns. People are required to make sure measures are in place to stop AI systems from faking human rights and to take appropriate steps to correct any violations in the Framework.

No participants from Asia ratified the Paris Declaration to maintain animal control in AI-enabled weapons systems. This Declaration aims to provide scaffolding to AI-enabled arms, for instance by ensuring that AI systems are not tasked with delegating life and death decisions without the assistance of humans.

Most Asian nation participation at the Summit was at a number of side situations. To come together with those from the UK, Ireland, and France to agree to a joint declaration on creating reliable data management frameworks, creating regulatory sandboxes for companies to experiment with AI systems, and working with other regulators in the contest, intellectual property, and consumer protection spheres, recognizing that privacy regulators only cannot address all Artificial harms.

A Global AI Assurance Captain for best practices around specialized testing of GenAI applications, a joint statement with Japan on multicultural AI safety tests, and an AI red-teaming assessment report were some of the projects Singapore presented at the summit.

This reflects Singapore’s ongoing efforts to develop realistic AI management tools and to collaborate abroad on these attempts.

Threading the knife on creativity and regulation

Nevertheless, Asian nations did not conflict with one side of the AI development versus regulation discussion. Instead of ignoring the practical issues facing the recent Artificial use cases in private and testing, countries like South Korea and Singapore did so.

Although Japan and India had higher-level human rights and public attention issues, speculative and more important issues involving martial AI and human rights were stifled in more mindful and strategic areas.

These strategies demonstrate that Asiatic nations want to promote AI development while avoiding excessive regulation while also fixing dangerous AI with practical solutions.

Nations will want to see the overall positive economic and social benefits of AI balanced out with any bad outcomes as the AI industry expands in Asia; however, tightening the economy may result in more regulation in the form of greater rules in the years to come.

Seth Hays is an attorney and managing chairman of APAC GATES, a Taipei-based right firm. Additionally, he is in charge of the non-profit Digital Governance Asia, which promotes plan best procedures in all of Asia.

Continue Reading

Trump ticking off items on Putin’s wish list – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The meeting between senior Russian ambassadors from the United States and Saudi Arabia could be the first step in the direction of an end to the conflict in Ukraine.

US and Soviet members reportedly agreed to work on both a peace agreement and to look into potential financial and investment options as a result of the almost five hours of speaks. Whatever the ultimate goal, Ukraine seems set to drop out.

The same cannot be said of the long-term owner of the Kremlin. Vladimir Putin has been pursuing what Donald Trump has given him for the past 20 years. Since Putin hailed the fall of the Soviet Union as” the greatest political crisis” of the 20th centuries, his foreign policy has always been about restoring at least some of the power position the Soviet Union enjoyed.

In some ways, the US government’s willingness to talk with Putin about bringing peace to Ukraine has given the Russian leader exactly what he desired: respect for and perhaps even fear for Moscow, as the Soviet Union again commanded from the West.

And in that impression, Trump’s telephone contact with the Kremlin represented a great triumph for Putin. Putin is currently awaiting a return offer to the best table of international politics. He has given up virtually all of the occupied Ukrainian country to travel there. He has not even offered to retake any of the territory that the Russian troops have taken since their full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago.

Then his foreign secretary, Sergei Lavrov, is talking to the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio. While the annexation of Crimea in 2014, which is when Russia’s conflict with Ukraine really began, seems to be getting more and more unnoticed.

The advice from the US defence secretary, Pete Hesgeth, last week that a profit to Ukraine’s pre-2014 edges was “unrealistic” has made clear Washington’s present perspective on that.

So far, so excellent for Putin, who sees the Western alliance beginning to crack after three years of being criticized against him, albeit with varying levels of enthusiasm and commitment.

Washington’s approach to Ukraine is showing signs of major divergence from that of the Union or the UK under Trump. Puntin undoubtedly understands that starting now will lead to longer-term success rather than be cowed by American stress.

The two leaders have now come to a consensus to join, which is a perfect turnaround from Joe Biden’s three years of growing isolation. And, as we know, the first time the two officials met for a conference, in Helsinki in 2018, Putin was widely seen as having outwitted Trump.

As Trump’s then-senior chairman for European and Russian Affairs, Fiona Hill, recalled in her autobiography:” As Trump responded that he believed Putin over his own intellect experts, I wanted to end the whole thing”.

Putin will hardly ever think opponent in any upcoming negotiations. Putin has fulfilled portion of his long-term objective by simply being there to examine the most pressing issue for the future of European stability with the US leader. Officials from the Kremlin and the White House did meet to discuss European politics as the continent’s dominant capabilities, just like in the Soviet Union’s days.

The opinions of Germans themselves, especially Ukrainians, are extra.

Back to the top board

If Putin’s mourn for a lost power in 2005 provided a glimpse into the course of his reign as the leader of Soviet power, he also provided additional clues on the night of the full-scale invasion. Putin expressed regret over the resurrected Soviet Union in December 2021.

He continued,” We turned into a totally different state,” adding that it had a significance well beyond the era in which it occurred. And what had been built up over 1, 000 times was essentially lost”.

Weeks later, with anticipation growing that Russia was planning to invade Ukraine, the foreign ministry in Moscow&nbsp, published&nbsp, a file called the Treaty between The United States of America and the Russian Federation on surveillance offers.

The language used today is impressive because of the references to the Soviet Union, as stated in article 4:” The United States of America may undertake to avoid further east expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny entry to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

The Biden presidency criticized the agreement as teasing. But Hegseth’s new note,” The United States does not think that NATO membership for Ukraine is a practical outcome of a negotiated arrangement”, fits right in with Putin’s wish list.

Russia is attempting to surpass the Soviet Union in global prestige. Additionally, it involves a significant change in activities that favors Putin.

For three years, I have been working on a book, The Transfer of Russia: From Yeltsin to Putin, the Story of a Angry Kremlin.

My studies included interviews with leading politicians, among them Jens Stoltenberg, who served as secretary standard of NATO between 2014 and 2024. I asked him how he saw the upcoming month of the Ukrainian war when we spoke in September 2023. He told me:

Only the Russians have the authority to decide what constitutes an appropriate option. However, the more experienced they are on the field, the more effective they will be at the desk of negotiations, so we have a responsibility to support them. However, it’s up to Ukraine to make the difficult decisions on the battlefield. And of course, at the end of the bargaining process.

Trump’s approach to reaching a deal seems to disregard that logic, which favors Putin before the negotiations even begin.

There is nothing to suggest that Putin’s extended view of history won’t encourage him to go to war once more in a few years, if it does put an end to the battle right away. Additionally, he’ll be more ready than he has been in the previous three bloody years to conquer more territory.

James Rodgers is audience in foreign media, City St George’s, University of London

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

The ceasefires that aren’t in Gaza, Lebanon – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The Gaza Strip war’s Israel-Hamas ceasefire is carefully deteriorating as daily small-scale breaches occur in the damaged coastal area. If low-intensity war is to become a thing, Donald Trump’s three-pronged peace strategy would be in jeopardized if it were to become reality.

In exchange for scores of Israeli prisoners currently in Israeli custody, the ceasefire is intended to first facilitate the release of several Israeli hostages held by Hamas, the Islamic terrorist organization.

Following those first exchanges, which are currently taking place, will be the complete withdrawal of Jewish troops from Gaza next month, followed by a lasting ceasefire and talks to finally end the conflict.

However, the murder warnings United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who claims it has been greatly reduced in comparison to the decades of conflict that started on October 7, 2023.

On the social media platform X, Guterres warned,” We has avoid at all costs the commencement of hostilities in Gaza that may result in an enormous tragedy.” Both parties had formally abide by the terms of the peace agreement and begin serious negotiations.

Gaza’s bubbling violence is not the only component that could drop the stalemate, observers contend. Trump himself made comments last week about the means of ending battle and goals that appeared to destroy the process.

He suggested transferring Gaza’s complete people to Egypt and Jordan, establishing a resort-resort similar to the French Riviera, and establishing a border with it. Washington pundits called it Mat-a-Gaza, a parody on the name of his secret Florida hotel, Mar-a-Lago.

” The stalemate has always been very brittle,” he said. It’s more therefore today”, said Girogio Calfiero, who heads Gulf State Analytics, a Washington-based consulting company. If the final objective is a massive cultural cleansing battle, in which more than two million Palestinians are forced into Egypt and Jordan, you have to wonder what justifies the continuation of the peace.

” It gives us good reason to worry about the ceasefire”, he concluded.

Cairo, Amman and local US supporters reject the thoughts, critically as does Hamas. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is, however, spreading the rumors during a Middle Eastern tour that started on Tuesday ( February 18 ).

One important US alliance has looked warmly on Trump’s people transplant pitch: Jewish leader Benjamin Netanyahu. He claimed he wanted to work with Trump to make it happen and called it “bold.”

Rubio, who was standing with the Jewish head during a joint media event, said that &nbsp, Hamas “must be eradicated”, without explaining why, therefore, it may keep talking.

US Middle East minister Steve Witkoff, who is leading the intervention work, stated that speaks on stage two of the peace are still taking place this year despite the aggressive comments.

In any event, the rise of murder seemed an empty mockery of the stalemate. Hamas police were killed and targeted by an Israeli drone attack on Sunday as they were assisting humanitarian assistance trucks close to Gaza’s southern border with Egypt.

Jewish news outlets reported on Tuesday that military forced Palestinians to march ahead of Israeli soldiers on guard in Gaza in an effort to “human shield” them. Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur for the Arab places, criticized the affair as “human insulating in action”.

A peace in Lebanon, which mirrors the Gaza alignment, is also in danger of collapse. Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim organization, had previously launched missiles into north Israel to help Hamas in Gaza. Israel later annexes the Hezbollah stronghold in southern Lebanon, and it continues to have troops it.

This year, Israeli jets bombarded locations across the north of Lebanon. According to Jewish leaders, the attack is intended to target Hezbollah positions and weapons depots.

Because of the Hezbollah risk, displaced Palestinian residents are forbidden from returning to evacuated places without Israel’s agreement, the authorities said.

According to information reports, Israeli forces shot an unarmed Palestinian woman who was attempting to process her home in the far north on cue to see if it had been damaged during the fighting.

Israeli army also made it known that they would not depart five of the military installations it had set up in southern Lebanon. The Syrian government had agreed to let the troops leave the area on January 26, which was a date set in discussions.

Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun demanded that Israel “abide by the peace deal, and retreat on the given time”. He demanded that Qatari and American diplomats who work for peace “fulfill their responsibilities and help us.”

Israel has also been asked to leave by the UN. A UN special representative in charge of promoting tranquility in the nation said in a statement that” an additional delay in this process is not what we hoped would happen,”” no least of which because it continues to violate United Nations Security Council resolution 1701.”

Another issue that is ongoing in the West Bank is related to the Gaza battle, but it is not covered by a stalemate. Jewish raids into rebel Israeli cities—notably the main towns of Tukaram, Jenin and Nablus—are continuing.

Two months prior to Hamas ‘ conquest of southern Israel on October 7, 2023, low-intensity fights started in the West Bank. Without a concerted politics to put an end to the murder, it faces the threat of becoming yet another theater of destruction.

Continue Reading

Trump’s playing right into China’s hands – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Only one month into his second term, President Trump 2.0 has angered America’s historic allies and wreaked havoc on Uncle Sam’s thoroughly cultivated soft-power politics.

The result could hardly be more obvious: Trump is making it easier for China to overtake the US as the world’s top power.

How is Trump excluding the rest of the world? Let us count the way.

Initially, he has alienated yet close friends with tariffs and political braggadocio. Trump threatened its closest relatives and two of its biggest trading partners, Mexico and Canada, with 25 % taxes if they didn’t comply with his expectations on border control, alerting all US allies.

However, the plainly non-threatening state of Denmark, a NATO alliance no less, may struggle with Trump’s stated desire to acquire Greenland. And, for good measure, Trump has claimed that Taiwan” stole our device business”, threatened to “take up” the Panama Canal and left Zelensky out in the warm while he and Putin personally negotiate an end to Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Trump isn’t really turning over all the rocks in his search for enemies. He is giving them a hurl. In the face of like an onslaught, who would blame also America’s closest friends for second-guessing their partnership with Washington?

Next, Trump is pitting Silicon Valley against the earth. At the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris next week, Vice President JD Vance declined to sign a commitment to “ensuring AI is empty, inclusive, open, honest, healthy, safe and reliable, taking into account global frameworks for all”. Unfortunately, Vance proclaimed the US as the “leader” in AI. In fact, the US was the obvious fool in Paris.

Next, Trump has declared war on green energy. He renounced the US$ 7,500 tax credit for EV purchases and curbed funding to install domestic electric vehicle ( EV ) charging stations. Once, the US is an exception, prioritizing the conservative mantra “drill, baby, chisel” over the alternative energy revolution.

Naturally, many countries have great reason to be disillusioned with the US. But is China really able to position itself as a desirable alternative partner? The answer is certainly – and these, too, we can count the ways.

First, China now has an entry in the area of international commerce. Trump 1.0, which ended badly in his first spit with China, is now a progression. After signing what Trump called a “historical trade agreement” in 2020, China never even managed to purchase an additional$ 200 billion in US imports.

China’s imports in the Global South almost matched those of the US and the EU combined, owing to impure relationships with the US.

Xi wants to be the world’s biggest trading partner for its quick companions, but that is what he wants to become. Canada has precisely what China needs: hardwood, wheat, gas and crabs. Additionally, Chinese foreign direct investments in Mexico have increased by 50 % annually since 2018, from$ 43 billion in 2016 to$ 100 billion in 2023.

Next, when it comes to AI, China has become the companion of global collaboration. The recently released relational artificial intelligence model from Chinese company DeepSeek is open source and open to the public for free.

Also, China’s largest tech firms – Huawei, Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent – are violently developing, investing and promoting open-source technology. This is in striking contrast to American companies like OpenAI, Google and Meta that rely on finished, propriety technology.

China is aware that the global energy balance is also in the hands of those who win the high-tech arms competition. Its strategy to AI is a new form of “ping-pong diplomacy”. China is eager to take the lead in developing and implementing the rules for how AI (among other technologies ) will be implemented.

Third, unlike the US under Trump, China grasps the link between green power, high technology and world identity ( both economic and geopolitical ).

Autonomous driving, for example, can only be implemented in EVs, fossil-fuel cars would have to eat too much energy to move the appropriate number of cameras, computers and electronics.

And only the most advanced AI models that can operate autonomous vehicles successfully with billions ( if not trillions ) of data points. China now garners 76 % of the world’s EV market share, and much of the technology is open source.

In brief, China gets it. Providing cheap, open-source Batteries and AI models isn’t really – as Trump sees it – about the almighty dollar. Instead, it’s sweet energy in the form of 1s and 0s. China may say that it wants to make the planet great again, but Trump emphasizes making America great again.

Trump recently signed an executive order outlawing the use of paper straws in all federal buildings, briefly putting aside his obsession with Greenland ( not to mention Gaza ). ” We’re going back to plastic”, he explained, adding that paper straws “explode if something’s hot”. The rest of the world is, to be honest, concerned about other types of bombs.

America’s friends today face a choice. Do they choose free industry over taxes, open source over finished systems, and green power over fossil fuels? Amazingly, Trump has allowed China to seize the mantle of improvement in all three areas.

His strategy is shock-inducing but no awesin’. He is aiming for second position for America.

Stanley Chao is the author of&nbsp,” Selling to China” &nbsp, and has lived and worked in China for over 20 years.

Continue Reading

South Korea and the US: a critical alliance at a crossroads – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

My elders did tell me tales of their early years when they chased after American soldiers and yelled,” Give me chocolate,” the only American thoughts they knew.

Seven years later, South Korea is one of the nation’s best and most developed countries. It is a amazing success story that demonstrates what happens when the US takes the lead with power and perspective.

South Korea has been returning the favor the US after had given South Korea by doing so. South Korea stepped up despite some nations avoiding direct participation in the Vietnam War because of democratic and private concerns. South Korea deployed more than 320, 000 soldiers at the US’s demand between 1964 and 1973, making it the largest foreign military factor after the US.

North Korean soldiers fought alongside Americans, sharing meals and battling socialism. The price was great: 5, 100 North Vietnamese soldiers lost their lives, while 11, 000 were wounded.

Beyond Vietnam, South Korea has constantly participated in UN peacekeeping missions in Somalia, East Timor, Lebanon, South Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan, among people. South Korea has constantly fulfilled its obligations as a devoted member of the international community as a result of the liberal democratic get under the leadership of the US.

South Koreans continue to fight for freedom because they understand how important it is to its people because some more lives have been lost on these expeditions.

South Korea’s US coverage failings

Despite the strength of the empire, the US has struggled to keep a consistent and coherent plan toward South Korea. This loss is highlighted by two crucial errors:

1. The danger of US army departure: During the first Trump presidency, repeated threats to withdraw US troops from South Korea raised serious concerns among South Koreans. Although the practicality of such a drawback remains uncertain, background provides a disturbing precedent.

During the Vietnam War, South Korea’s rollout was based on an inherent knowing that, in returning, the US would maintain South Korea’s protection against North Korean anger. But, President Carter pursued a punitive drawback of US troops from the coast, and it sowed deep hostility in American agreements.

2. The Trump presidency even changed the terms of the US-ROK empire, focusing instead on a financial partnership rather than a bloody empire built on shared beliefs and sacrifices.

South Koreans have seen the United States as a pillar of democracy and a breakaway from Chinese persecution for years. But, Trump’s repeated complaints about South Korea’s economic growth, defence spending and business policies began to erode that understanding.

Real leadership transcends simple business transactions. It embodies perspective, vision and shared development. South Korea has long held this perfect, but recent US laws have skewed that view.

If this trend continues, it was considerably weaken American influence in the region. South Korea might be forced to do the same if the US treats it as a bloated collection item in a financial statement. What happens if China offers South Korea more financial incentives than the US?

Korea’s political value

Henry Kissinger reportedly observed,” Whoever controls Korea handles Asia”. Korea continues to be a significant player in regional safety and power dynamics despite China and Russia crossing the border to the northwest and Japan to the south.

Problems in Europe and Asia have long been treated by the US as distinct theaters. However, past tells a different tale. During World War II, the US primarily focused on Europe, underestimating Japan’s royal passions. But, Japan’s signing of the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy demonstrated how interconnected Europe and Asia were.

Now, history is repeating itself. In line with previous relationships that led to local problems turning into world wars, North Korea is sending soldiers to Russia to struggle in Ukraine. One might go one step further and say that who controls Korea controls Asia and shapes the earth in light of recent political shifts, with North Korea immediately involved in the Russo-Ukrainian War.

The US must be aware that the world’s energy balance may be influenced by its current plans toward South Korea.

Dangers of the America approach

While the US today acknowledges China as a corporate company, it remains uncertain about how to store Beijing’s growing influence properly. South Korea is vulnerable because of its lack of proper clarity, which is counteracted by its portrayal of it as merely a business partner, and by its continuing to alienate one of the most unwavering US allies.

Yoon senate a foreign policy fight

The National Assembly’s second impeachment act against President Yoon cited his international policy as the main justification for his treatment:

The Yoon leadership has abandoned political stability, oppressed North Korea, China, and Russia, and pursued an unusually Japan-centric international policy. Also, it has appointed authorities with pro-Tokyo affiliations to essential government positions.

This speech alarmed astute international watchers, including Washington policymakers, despite immediately being dismissed as a minor incident. It established blatantly that authoritarian forces, supported by China, were trying to change South Korea’s social position.

The impeachment incident, which involved leftist groups aligning with Beijing more than Washington, revealed a heavy ideological divide within South Korea.

New danger

The liberal political world order is under siege, and unless the US and its supporters rise to the challenge, its life is not guaranteed. As Thucydides warned,” The robust do what they can”. To this, we might include: The just solid do what they just you.

This risk has gone by some names – socialism, communism, collectivism, people’s politics– but at the core there is a common denominator: a system in which the social subjugates the individual and freedom is sacrificed in the name of the so-called common good.

The US once had the social conviction to acknowledge the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union. It confronted that issue head-on – and won. Yet, the US has a record of oscillating between international authority and protectionism. ” America First” is a recurring theme in US foreign policy. When the US resorts, the vacuum is filled by the rising candidate.

Why is the US necessary in South Korea?

China has studied history and is exploiting US weaknesses, waging unrestricted warfare– no just physically, but likewise culturally, monetarily, and technologically – to undermine the foundations of liberal democracy.

South Korea has come a long way from a youngster chasing American trucks for chocolate to a country demonstrating that freedom and prosperity are possible outside the Western world. However, South Korea cannot compete with China’s growing behemoth on its own. It needs international support.

Freedom, once lost, is nearly impossible to regain. The enemies of democracy are aware of this, which is why they do not launch attacks directly but instead slowly erode our values, bit by bit. If we don’t acknowledge the magnitude of this challenge, we could soon find ourselves ruled by those who want to destroy our freedoms rather than the best.

According to Plato,” the price of apathy toward public affairs is being ruled by evil men.”

The choice is ours.

The question is clear: Will we rise to meet this challenge, or are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?

Hanjin Lew&nbsp is a former international spokesman for South Korean conservative parties and a political commentator with an emphasis on East Asian affairs.

Continue Reading

Apparent Trump vision: Divvy up the world into demarcated empires – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Technically, America– whether led by Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump– may be trying to remain the country’s pre-eminent corporate power.

The realist perspective holds that the global system of states compels specific states to seek as much power as possible in foreign relations theory. &nbsp, This is the only means to effectively make themselves more stable.

From these, there is a cut between defensive and offensive realists.

Protective realists think that as a condition improves its standing over potential rival states, it stops at the accelerator and concentrates more on upholding the status quo than leading.

According to insulting realists, a state can never have too much security, and states will not give up trying to bolster their relative power over other nations, who could also be adversaries. &nbsp, Any condition that has the capability may try to dominate its relatives.

John J. Mearsheimer portrayed as” Mearchiavelli”, by Marwane Pallas, the Philomathean Society. Image: mearsheimer.com

One of the most popular American proponents of authenticity, University of Chicago doctor John Mearsheimer, is in the unpleasant station. &nbsp, His outlook&nbsp, predicts:” The United States is going to come to great lengths to make certain that China does not occupy Asia”.

Wonderful measures include declaring war on Taiwan. Americans “would fight and die to support Taiwan”, he&nbsp, believes.

He dissects questions about whether US citizens would be in favor of a war by stating that the US government had “manipulate the discourse on what is happening in ways that manifest China as a corporeal threat.”

Mearsheimer&nbsp, gives&nbsp, two causes why Washington had try so hard to have PRC expansionism.

Second, the United States has worldwide economic passions to defend. A possible adversary, such as China, do threaten American prosperity if it gained control of a significant region with its wealth, commercial potential, and economic power. &nbsp,” It is evident from the traditional record”, he&nbsp, writes, that” the US does not tolerate friend competition”.

Second, Mearsheimer argues that a strong country that establishes domination over its region is “free to roam” .&nbsp, Not threatened by any of its own neighbors, it will make aggressive probes into some other major power’s neighborhood. &nbsp, So if the US wasn’t blocking Beijing’s power over areas of China’s close overseas such as Taiwan, the East China Sea and the South China Sea, China may be challenging US protection in the Northern Hemisphere.

Mearsheimer’s unpleasant realism, nonetheless, has a built-in weakness. He acknowledges that governments, including those of the US, do not always work as his theory suggests, despite the reasoning that seems to suggest that America should hang onto proper hegemony at all costs and ensure China does no achieve hegemony over Asia.

For example, he&nbsp, says, &nbsp, it was “foolish” and a” proper blunder” for the US to energy China’s rapid economic growth and technical progress starting in the 1980s in the mistaken belief&nbsp, that this would preclude potential security conflicts with China– an opinion that many other analysts then share.

Mearsheimer claims that his theory accurately predicts how major powers will act in response to external circumstances, but that some nations, including the most important nation on earth, reject to act in accordance with his theory.

Despite the pressures of the international system, it seems as though this makes room for the possibility that a government in the US that is no longer interested in preventing Chinese hegemony in East Asia might emerge.

This may in fact be happening. &nbsp,

Trump’s strategy appears to involve dividing the world into clearly defined empires, rather than an activist America that favors liberal rules and institutions and seeks to shape regions around the world to stop the rise of powerful adversaries. His continued rant about annexing Canada and Greenland seems more like a joke to his domestic political rivals.

Trump may have accepted the Russian and Chinese empires, according to some sources. &nbsp, His government has signaled acceptance of Russia&nbsp, keeping&nbsp, its recent territorial gains in Ukraine.

Recent statements by Trump’s controversial Defense Secretary&nbsp, Pete Hegseth&nbsp, and Vice President&nbsp, J. D. Vance&nbsp, have deepened European&nbsp, fears&nbsp, that Trump II intends to scuttle US security commitments to Western Europe.

Trump has frequently said the US alliances with Japan and South Korea are worthwhile only if America&nbsp, makes a profit&nbsp, from them. He has said little about the strategic significance of these alliances, which suggests he is not in favor of strategically containing China, even though some of his senior officials are.

Trump reportedly&nbsp, wants&nbsp, to withdraw US troops from South Korea. &nbsp, He has also&nbsp, said&nbsp, he has” no problem” with North Korea testing short-range missiles that cannot reach the US, even though such missiles threaten South Korea. If Trump were to remove America from Pyongyang’s target list, it seems as though he would be willing to let go of South Korea’s defense.

As for the possibility of US intervention in a Taiwan Strait war, Trump has said Taiwan is&nbsp, indefensible and is&nbsp, unimportant&nbsp, compared with China – and that he resents Taiwan for allegedly” stealing” the semiconductor manufacturing business from the US.

After taking part in annual drills at the Tsoying naval base in Kaohsiung, Taiwanese sailors in this file photo, taken on January 31, 2018, salute the island’s flag on the deck of the Panshih supply ship. Photo: AFP / Mandy Cheng

Trump sees China as a threat as an economic threat, which he would address primarily through economic policy rather than military strategy.

He has always preferred tariffs as a tool. Trump argues that tariffs can help to balance the US trade deficit and encourage manufacturing to relocate there. &nbsp, In late 2024 Trump&nbsp, said&nbsp, in an interview with the&nbsp, Wall Street Journal&nbsp, that he would respond to a PRC attack on Taiwan by imposing high tariffs on China, not by sending US forces to help.

Contrary to Mearsheimer’s expectation, Trump seems not to fear that a Chinese hegemony over Asia would seriously jeopardize US prosperity.

Despite China’s impressive economic development, accumulation of wealth and military buildup, America is still the world’s leading economic, military and innovation power. &nbsp, Washington also has a network of strong allies, unlike China.

The US has not abandoned its efforts to support global arrangements made up of liberal principles that serve US interests, or to oppose Chinese expansionism in East Asia. &nbsp, Rather, the Trump II administration may be choosing to let&nbsp, Pax Americana&nbsp, die in a case of domestic politics triumphing over international imperatives that are clearly not irresistible.

Denny Roy is a senior fellow at the East-West Center, Honolulu.

Continue Reading

​US-Russia meeting in Riyadh successful, more to follow – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The great level political meeting, held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on February 17th, is reported to have been successful by both the Russian and US sides.

Steve Witkoff, who is Trump’s range one troubleshooter, said that the conference was “positive, cheerful, creative and really good”. Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister and rival to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, said the appointment in Riyadh was “very useful”.

Actually the US group was led by Rubio along with Mike Waltz, national security advisor to the President, and Witkoff. We are unable to identify any individuals on the US area.

Rubio claimed that there were three main points at the table:

  • establishing diplomatic team to improve Washington and Moscow’s political operations
  • establishing higher levels groups to sort out the “parameters of the issue” in Ukraine, and
  • a second track to discover potential financial partnerships that could arise after the resolution of the Ukraine conflict, which the US part characterized as a “potentially historical financial prospect” for Russia.

Additionally, Lavrov stated that a meeting of the deputy foreign ministers would be held to discuss the specifics of a Trump-Putin meeting. No specific date was set for a Trump-Putin meeting.

Sergey Lavrov and Yury Ushakov, the president’s foreign affairs advisor, made up the top-level Russian delegation. Kirill Dmitriev was also a member of the Russian delegation. The Russian Direct Investment Fund ( RDIF), Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, is led by Dimitri V. Vladimir Proskuryakov and Dmitry Balakin were also present on the Russian side.

Proskuryakov has a focus on Arctic affairs and works for the Russian Embassy in Canada. Possible cooperation in the Artic was a topic of conversation in Riyadh. Although no specifics are available, it is likely that the discussion focused on the use of Artic resources and the creation of shipping routes if climate change continues to affect shipping.

It is reported that Dmitriev held side meetings in Riyadh on monetary and investment issues, but we don’t know who served as Dmitriev’s counterpart, although that could have been Steve Witkoff.

Both the US Embassy in Moscow and the Russian Embassy in Washington are conducting diplomatic operations while restrictions need to be lifted, essentially accelerating diplomatic normalization. This includes many elements. Following the meeting, Mr. Lavrov called attention to this and stated after the meeting that” It is necessary to remove the obstacles created by the Biden administration that impede the work of diplomats, including ongoing expulsions and seizures of real estate.”

In the debriefing of the meeting, Lavrov made a powerful point about Ukraine. Lavrov said” Not only did we listen, but we genuinely heard each other”.

Kyiv was not invited to speak at the talks, nor was any other state or organization from Europe. A flurry of activity in Europe has resulted from the lack of participation, leading to an “emergency” meeting called by France ( but excluding some NATO members who are opposed to supporting the Ukrainian war ).

Director General of NATO Marc Rutte, did attend the Paris meeting. It isn’t exactly clear why he did so, with some NATO members not invited, nor is it clear why he would do so without US agreement.

One result of the meeting, attended by the EU as a participant, were harsh statements aimed primarily at Washington and British pledge to send troops to Ukraine as part of some “peacekeeping” venture. The Germans, Italians and Poles disagreed with the British initiative.

The Russians have made it clear at the Riyadh meeting and in public statements, that NATO “peacekeepers” would not be welcome.

Lavrov said in his debriefing that a so-called three-step plan for Ukraine&nbsp, is a fake. &nbsp, The alleged plan has been attributed to Marco Rubio. ” The&nbsp, plan includes&nbsp, high-level meetings involving Ukraine and European nations and concessions from all sides, Rubio said”. The three steps are said to be ( 1 ) a ceasefire, ( 2 ) elections in Ukraine and ( 3 ) a final agreement.

It isn’t clear that a ceasefire was discussed, or Ukrainian elections. According to all credible reports, President Trump and President Putin both agreed to discuss potential terms for a settlement.

Numerous maps have been published in the press that show what a deal would look like and how the key points were discussed in Riyadh.

Readers should be informed that none of these maps appear to accurately represent the actual discussion in Riyadh, which covered the Russian and US positions on the conflict but did not go far enough to authorize further discussions to prepare for a Trump-Putin meeting.

Daily Mail graphic on a’ deal’ for Ukraine

The Riyadh meeting was conducting in a professional manner, without posturing or accusations. This is a major change from the rhetoric that dominated the Biden administration, although it remains a key component of Euro-rhetoric.

Stephen Bryen is a former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy and a special correspondent for Asia Times. This article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter&nbsp, Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Risking Trump wrath, Ukraine bombs US oil project in Russia – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Ukraine carried out a large-scale drone strike against the&nbsp, partially US-owned Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s ( CPC ) pumping station in Russia’s Krasnodar region early Monday ( February 17 ) morning.

Some were hitherto conscious of this job, let alone that it continued operating without any difficulties amidst the NATO-Russian substitute conflict in Ukraine and the West’s anti-Russian punishment, but it’s one of America’s most important regional opportunities. This bold strike, thus, risks incurring Donald Trump’s fury.

Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian leader and Security Council deputy president, made a&nbsp, a long Telegram post  on February 18 in which he claimed Zelensky was aware of the US connection to the CPC but that the large-scale drone strike was still carried out despite this.

In response to rumors that the US president will obstruct Ukraine’s peace with Russia, Medvedev claimed it was intended to be” a triple blow to American businesses, the oil business, and Trump personally.”

If Ukraine consents to Trump’s proposed US rights of its crucial material resources, Volodymyr Zelensky, president of Ukraine, revealed that the country’s Volodymyr Zelensky is upset about Trump’s attempt to impose expectations on Ukraine that “would number to a higher discuss of Ukrainian GDP than compensation imposed on Germany at the Versailles Treaty.”

Russian MP Dmitry Belik&nbsp, speculated&nbsp, the day before Medvedev’s post that adversarial elements within the US “deep state” might have also cooked this provocation up with the UK to “get under ( Trump’s ) skin”.

Either way, the attack’s orchestrators likely also didn’t know that the CPC is integral to the energy security of America’s top ally, Israel, which received a significant amount of oil from the megaproject over the course of its last regional war against the&nbsp, Iran-led Resistance Axis.

Readers can learn more about that&nbsp, here, which analyzed data about Kazakhstan’s and even Russia’s oil exports to Israel during that 15-month-long conflict, which few were also hitherto aware of.

Given that Hamas and/or Hezbollah’s ceasefires are fragile, it is unlikely that Israel’s president will engage in any negotiations with Trump to ensure the CPC’s security in the event that the region turns back into conflict.

Trump might at least make a threat in the background to stop Ukraine from receiving financial and/or military aid unless it renounces its unilateral policy of attacking the Russian oil infrastructure.

The larger context of&nbsp, ongoing Russian-US peace talks over Ukraine&nbsp, could even lead to Moscow following suit by eschewing its own such attacks against that country’s energy infrastructure as&nbsp, the first step&nbsp, toward a possible ceasefire for facilitating the elections that could then&nbsp, lead to Zelensky’s replacement.

It, of course, remains to be seen exactly how Trump responds to Zelensky’s provocation, but it’s extremely unlikely that he’ll ignore it, especially considering how this also indirectly harms Israel.

Ukraine’s large-scale drone attack against the partially US-owned CPC will, therefore, probably end up being something it comes to regret. It would be premature to describe it as a game-changer, but it couldn’t have occurred at a worse time for Ukraine given the ongoing Russian-US talks over its future.

Given how detrimental it will foreseeably end up being for Ukraine’s interests at this crucial time in the conflict, those responsible for planning and approving the attack could even lose their jobs or worse.

This&nbsp, article&nbsp, was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading