Xi's landmark South-East Asia trip expands partnerships
Two multilateral meetings, close to 20 bilateral talks and a sit-down with United States President Joe Biden – President Xi Jinping’s six-day trip to South-East Asia has charted the way for global governance, expanded China’s global partnerships and steadied ties between the world’s two largest economies.
Xi travelled to Bali, Indonesia, from Monday to Thursday for the G20 Summit before attending the 29th Apec Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Bangkok and visiting Thailand – the first time he has attended the events in person in three years. Xi returned to China on Saturday evening.
The back-to-back meetings held by Asian countries took place amid spillover from the Ukraine crisis, which fuelled global financial, energy and food crises, with some countries advocating division, confrontation and decoupling.
The world is again standing at a crossroads, and Asia has embraced a crucial moment in promoting global governance, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said after the conclusion of Xi’s trip.
Wang, who is also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, said Xi’s proposals at the G20 Summit indicated that he has always kept the interests of developing nations in mind and maintained the outlook in his diplomatic activities that true development can only be attained with the common development of all countries.
At the summit, Xi said Beijing supports the African Union in joining the G20.
China’s support for multilateralism and its contribution to G20 cooperation is also evidenced in the fact that the 15 projects and proposals put forward by Beijing were included in the list of projects for pragmatic cooperation at the summit.
Bernard Dewit, chairman of the Brussels-based Belgian-Chinese Chamber of Commerce, said Xi’s proposals at the Apec meetings were not only inspiring for the Asia-Pacific region but also for other countries around the world, especially in Europe.
“At a moment when the COP 27 is closing, Xi insists that his country will push further for green and low-carbon development.
“Every government in the world should approve of his words when he says protecting the ecological environment and tackling environmental changes is the common challenge facing all humanity.”
Raymund Chao, chairman for the Asia-Pacific region and China of professional services provider PwC, said Xi’s written speech delivered to the Apec CEO Summit has boosted the confidence of business leaders in the Asia-Pacific region in responding to risks and turning crises into opportunities. — China Daily/ANN
President Xi has met a number of
foreign leaders and delivered important remarks while attending the G20
summit in Bali, Indonesia, showing charm of major-country diplomacy.
Check out the graphic to learn more:
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit will be held in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, from Thursday to Friday. The summit has received particular attention from the international community. Fifteen heads of state, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, will attend the summit. This is the first face-to-face discussion between leaders of the SCO member states since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The meeting will include Iran as the ninth member of the SCO and issue the Samarkand Declaration to expound the SCO's position on a series of international issues.
As the world's largest and most populous regional organization, the SCO has a prominent feature: openness and inclusiveness. The second round of SCO expansion is one of the core agendas of the Samarkand Summit. As the current members, observers and dialogue partners of the SCO are all non-Western countries, some of which are being sanctioned by the US and the West, such as Russia, Iran and Belarus, the SCO has attracted some suspicions from American and Western public opinion. They describe the SCO's exploration of new multilateral cooperation mechanisms as wanting to "compete" with the West or "against the West."
The SCO summit, held in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, was even described by some Western media as creating an "anti-Western front." If there is a Chinese proverb to comment on this, it is "ask not the sparrow how the eagle soars." They can only understand and speculate about the SCO's concepts with their own narrow cognition. The minds of American and Western elites are full of domineering and paranoid confrontational thinking. The target they wanted to suppress had better "socially die" in the global village and not have its own circle of friends. However, the controlling power of the US and the West cannot match their ambitions, and things that do not meet their wishes are constantly emerging, just like the SCO. In a certain sense, this is the inevitability of social evolution or the progress of the times.
The core concept of the SCO is the "Shanghai Spirit." It proposes a set of new concepts, new models, and new norms on how countries after the Cold War should live on an equal footing, how to conduct multilateral cooperation mechanisms, and how to develop the global order. In the 21 years since its establishment, the SCO, which has been "bad-mouthed" by the US and the West, has not broken up, but instead has shown vigorous vitality and attractiveness. Ten countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, all hope to join the SCO. Differences in the political system, history, and culture of the SCO member states, and even territorial disputes and ideological differences have not become obstacles to the development of the SCO. It explored a path beyond the Cold War mentality in a world with increasing diversity and differences.
The SCO eyes for cooperation, and at the same time, it aims to express its voice and attitude to the world, representing one-quarter of the Earth's land area, nearly one-quarter of the global GDP, and one-third of the total population. For a long time, these countries have been overshadowed by the West. But it needs to be emphasized that the SCO does not target third parties, including the West. It is the inherent gene of the SCO. It will never become an organization against the West or any party at any time, just like the seeds of a big tree will never grow into thatch. Some people in the US and the West have always wanted to label the SCO as "Eastern NATO." Their narrow vision and barren imagination starkly contrast the SCO's breadth and richness.
If the West really has a sense of crisis, what it really needs to do is not to vilify the SCO, or even sow discord and dampen the enthusiasm of countries that want to participate in the organization. Instead, it should seriously reflect on what has gone wrong in its way of viewing the world. Washington often beats with a stick and offers a carrot, roping in other countries in all sorts of ways to form cliques. But many countries in the world are moving more and more away from it, while the SCO insists on the sovereign equality of states and non-exclusive multilateralism, and its circle of friends is getting bigger and bigger. The reason for this is that the SCO's "three no's principles" - no alliance, no confrontation, and no targeting any third party - have won the hearts of many countries. The more the US and the West engage in coercive diplomacy to force others to "take sides," the stronger the global community's demand for genuine multilateralism will be.
It is no coincidence that the SCO has evolved from a cooperative mechanism dedicated to combating the "three forces" to a vehicle today with four wheels of "politics, security, economy, and humanities." From the fight against terrorism, proposed by the SCO long before September 11 attacks, to the Global Development Initiative and Global Security Initiative being promoted right now, the vision, foresight, and correctness of the SCO have been repeatedly tested in the past and will be confirmed in the future. The SCO provides the world a huge room for imagination, and the Samarkand Summit will become a new milestone.
Chinese President Xi Jinping is now paying his first foreign visit since the COVID-19 pandemic to Central Asia, and to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit. This major diplomatic activity has drawn attention around the globe and charmed the key multilateral event in Samarkand with frequent bilateral meetings with the leaders of other SCO
members and key partners across the Eurasia continent.
llustration: Chen Xia/Global Times
US President Joe Biden announced on Monday that its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) will start with 12 founding members - Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
The White House touted that those countries account for about 40 percent of the world's GDP, but the high-profile launch doesn't obscure the fact that the US economic scheme, which reportedly covers supply chains, digital trade, clean energy, and anticorruption efforts, lacks specific content.
The US might be able to attract some economies to the IPEF with its seemingly ambitious pledges about digital economy and a new supply chain. However, when it comes to specific negotiations of rules, if the US cannot provide countries with practical benefits to really push for the establishment of a win-win mechanism, the IPEF will not lead to any concrete results.
It is no secret that the IPEF will be used by the US as an important geopolitical tool to contain China in the Asia-Pacific region, but the participation of the other 12 founding countries doesn't necessarily mean they will be all sided with the US in "decoupling" from China. To a certain extent, their participation in the IPEF is largely because they want to be engaged in the establishment of the new economic and trade mechanism from the beginning so as to have a greater say in the rule-setting for their own interests.
For instance, from the perspective of the seven ASEAN members, it is understandable that they hope to benefit from bigger market access, tariff elimination and other preferential trade policies through the new economic scheme, with the view of further promoting the development of their economies and industrial chains. But it is also important to note that most of the ASEAN members are at a different development stage from that of developed countries such as the US and Japan, resulting in a sharp division when it comes their respective requirements for standards in areas like digital economy, labor rights, market regulation, environmental protection, and anti-corruption. And it remains to be seen how the voices and interests of these developing countries can be assured during the detailed negotiations.
In this sense, the game between the US and the other 12 countries may have just started. US Secretary of Commerce Raimondo stated that the IPEF is to "make Indo-Pacific countries beyond China more attractive as manufacturing hubs," according to the South China Morning Post. But that raises a new question: since China is the largest trading partner for more than 120 countries, how can the US ensure the stability of the regional supply chain without China? Maybe that's not the intention of the US at all, because supply chain chaos may actually create new opportunities for the US to bring back manufacturing companies.
However, most of the Asia-Pacific countries see the US as their major export market and China as their major supply chain partner, so they want to see their cooperation with the US under the IPEF could increase their chances of exporting their manufactured goods to the US - and not necessarily trying to hurt trade with China.
From the US' perspective, since Donald Trump's administration, many in Washington blame multilateral free trade for US economic problems, including unemployment and a weakening manufacturing sector. With that protectionist sentiment continuing, the Biden administration is unlikely to give Asian countries more access to the US market.
In fact, if the US opens its market wider to Asian countries, its imports will increase, especially from China, because the Asia-Pacific supply chain is essentially intertwined closely with the Chinese industrial chain. Moreover, China is becoming a major export market for these Asia-Pacific countries, with even stronger demand compared with the US in some fields.
The bottom line is that the decline of American manufacturing has deprived the US of the ability to dominate the regional industrial chain to achieve its strategic goals. The IPEF can offer nothing to make Asia-Pacific countries compromise their massive economic ties with China just to appease Washington.
Washington has launched quite a few “strategies” and “dialogues” in recent years. But most of them either went nowhere during the
partisan changes, or the US withdrew and gave them up. The reason is that it always wants to fool other countries to be “cannon fodder” of
its hegemony. At the same time, it tried to wrangle with the trend of the time but that efforts always ended in vain.
“We do not anticipate any new dramatic tightening policies, as this would derail the recovery of the property sector.” TA Securities Research
PETALING JAYA: Budget 2022 will likely contain elements that make home ownership and financing more accessible, according to TA Securities Research.
“Following the full reopening of all economic sectors this month, we expect that better market sentiment along with stronger recovery in economic and business activity to contribute to better developers’ sales prospects ahead, which will eventually translate into stronger earnings going forward,” said the research unit.
TA Securities Research maintained its “overweight” rating on the property sector, and said a rerating is justified, considering developers’ encouraging sales growth and attractive valuations.
“We do not anticipate any new dramatic tightening policies, as this would derail the recovery of the property sector,” it said.
Taking a cue from the recently announced 12th Malaysia Plan (12MP), it also opined that Budget 2022 would primarily focus on ensuring adequate, quality, and affordable housing, improving the living standard of poor households and monitoring and evaluating efforts as well as achieving urban sustainability.
It is anticipated that the focus of Budget 2022 would be to ease the burden of the B40 and M40 as their livelihood was largely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Also, Budget 2022 should be primarily helpful to low-to-middle-income earners as well as to first-time home owners.
TA Securities Research is also hopeful for more measures to ease the burden of property owners by extending the real property gains tax (RPGT) exemptions along with lower RPGT rates.
Based on its channel checks, it said property developers’ wish lists and expectations for Budget 2022 include promoting homeownership among the low-to-middle income group, reiterating and broadening existing public housing schemes, making home ownership and financing easier, extending the Home Ownership Campaign to 2022, and a tax relief for mortgage interest.
Property developers are hoped for incentives such as a relaxation of requirements for the Malaysia My Second Home (MM2H) programme.
Despite the fact that the MM2H programme only accounts for a fraction of the overall number of homebuyers in Malaysia, it can nonetheless contribute to reducing the overhang of unsold properties.
“We note the recent adjustments to the MM2H programme criteria for new applicants could be extremely stringent, discouraging foreigners from settling and working in Malaysia,” said TA Securities Research.
Additional incentives are needed to promote green development in Malaysia and to encourage developers to adopt accredited green certification tools during the construction and operation phases of development projects.
The government should grant additional tax incentives to developers of green-certified buildings, allowing them to claim income tax deductions equal to the additional capital expenditure required to obtain green certification.
On top of that, the government may consider offering stamp duty exemptions to purchasers who acquire properties that have been certified as environmentally friendly in order to stimulate demand.
“This is primarily to address the higher cost of green building construction in comparison to conventional buildings, which may deter potential buyers from making the investment,” said TA Securities Research.
Government Budget in Malaysia increased to -3.20 percent of GDP in 2020 from -3.40 percent of GDP in 2019. source: Ministry of Finance Malaysia
Malaysia Government Budget
Government
Budget is an itemized accounting of the payments received by government
(taxes and other fees) and the payments made by government (purchases
and transfer payments). A budget deficit occurs when an government
spends more money than it takes in. The opposite of a budget deficit is a
budget surplus.
While young adults all over the world are renting homes, successful
Malaysians and Singaporeans prefer to own homes instead of cars, as soon
as they get their first pay cheque.
Instead of blowing their cash on pricey gadgets, young Malaysians are saving up for their first home.
World main countries 2021 Q1 GDP Growth Infographic: Wu Tiantong/GT
Xi Jinping: Chinese people will never allow foreign bullying, oppressing or subjugating
https://youtu.be/oS5QqS9C_xw
https://youtu.be/J1s1evS3xJc
As China gears up to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC) on July 1, one of the greatest achievements of the CPC to be highlighted is what has been widely described as an economic miracle. From a backward agrarian economy in the early days of the People's Republic of China (PRC) to an economic and technological powerhouse today, China's economic success story under the CPC's leadership has arguably become the global story of the century and the envy of the world.
The secret codes behind such miraculous achievements have also become a hotly debated topic around the world. This article will decode those codes.
Born into a poor rural family with per capita disposal income of less than 50 yuan ($7.80), the PRC, now in its 70s, has seen the income reading top 32,000 yuan as of 2020. Behind the 640-plus fold surge is the country's rapid ascent to a global behemoth in almost every aspect in an unparalleled timeframe and path.
What are the CPC's secret codes to economic success?
To answer that, the Global Times conducted an extensive examination of the CPC's economic policymaking at several critical junctions and interviewed domestic and foreign experts. Four key themes stand out.
World main countries 2021 Q1 GDP Growth Infographic: Wu Tiantong/GT
Bold planning, effective execution
"The five-year planning is the major driving factor that boosted the Chinese economy to the No. 2 in the world. This system is effective and reliable in focusing on and predicting how the economy performs and which necessary adjustments are required to finetune it along the way," David Monyae, director of the Centre for Africa-China Studies at the University of Johannesburg, told the Global Times.
Since its beginning in the 1950s, there have been 14 five-year plans (FYP) - each marks a significant shift in China's economic policies and advances in social and economic development.
The first FYP, which started in 1953, envisioned the industrialization of China, starting the 60-plus year journey of creating an economic constellation that's being renovated every five years.
"China has led a different path than the West's laissez-faire capitalism or its so-called marketization. China maintains more compelling institutional prowess than the West," said Cong Yi, dean of School of Marxism under Tianjin University of Finance and Economics, citing the Party's strong ability to make strategic development plans that integrate short-term plans into medium and long-term ones.
After initially drawing on the Soviet Union's five-year planning experience, the CPC soon realized the limitations of the Soviet model and some of its shortcomings and mistakes, and then decided to independently explore a socialist construction road suited to China's national conditions, which, coupled with laser focus and effective execution, led to one milestone after another.
The 13th CPC National Congress in 1987 made a proposition of a three-step development strategy that envisaged doubling the gross national product (GNP) between 1981 and 1990, doubling its GNP again by the end of the 20th century and per capita GNP reaching moderately developed country levels by the middle of this century.
Buoyed by unprecedented reformist drives since the country's grand reform and opening-up in 1978, the second-step target was hit at the conclusion of the Eighth FYP (1991-95), five years ahead of schedule.
In yet another milestone, the Third Plenary Session of the 14th CPC Central Committee in November 1993 passed the decision on certain issues in establishing a socialist market economic system. With the guidance of the Ninth FYP (1996-2000), the country made good the transition from a planned economy to a socialist market economy in 2000, a prelude to its accession to the WTO in December 2001.
In the latest proof of the effectiveness of the FYP, just as planned, the alternation of the 13th FYP ended 2020 and the newest FYP starting this year is on course to deliver a victory for its first centenary goal of building a moderately well-off society on the CPC's 100th anniversary.
"The main feature of the five-year plans is the top-level design, which is holistic, macroscopic, forward looking, anticipatory and binding," Zhao Xuejun, director of the Modern Economic History of China Research Center under Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) Institute of Economics, told the Global Times.
Today, China's FYPs have become a closely watched policy document around the world as it provides a valuable window into China's economic policies and development goals.
This year, global attention was focused on the 14th FYP ending 2025, which is set to pave the way for the second centenary goal to be attained - building a modern socialist power by 2049 when the PRC turns 100.
File photo:VCG
Seeking truth from facts
However, even as China's economy advanced in an overall steady pace as planned, there were no shortages of difficulties and mistakes over the past several decades - from some early decisions and policies that were against market rules to the "decade of the catastrophe," to the blind pursuit of extensive and high-speed growth over a certain period of time.
In overcoming those challenges and mistakes, the CPC showed its ability to "seek truth from facts" - a phrase that epitomizes the Party's flexibility and ability to objectively pinpoint the problems, experts said.
That ability was highlighted in the Party's response to crises during the Great Leap Forward era, which coincided with the Three Years of Natural Disasters (1959-61) and the breakdown of Sino-Soviet Union relations.
During the period, exaggeration about production prevailed across China, being called "launching satellites," and from wheat, rice and steel, places and reports started to boast of false high productions. The economic and social campaign that aimed for a rapid industrialization to steer the-then poor economy into a modern communist society appeared to have wrong-footed the economy.
Instead of turning a blind eye to the truth, the CPC Central Committee urged maximum efforts to correct all deviations in an urgent instruction letter in November 1960 and a Party plenum in January 1961 decided on the implementation of an economic adjustment.
As the economy ran its course of adjustment at the end of 1965 and began its third FYP, the Cultural Revolution began, putting the country in "10 years of catastrophe" until 1976.
Then came another turn - the 11th National Congress of the CPC in August 1977 declared the end of the Cultural Revolution and reiterated that the Party's fundamental task was to build the country into a socialist modern power.
"The CPC has a strong mechanism of self-correction; internally it came from the democratic system of the Party, and essentially it is built on the Party's tenet of seeking interest for the people and re-juvenation for the nation," Zhao told the Global Times.
The perseverance with seeking truth comes across as building the economy's resilience that has dissolved various challenges and crises, such as the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, the 2008 global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, into hiccups which only result in increased economic sophistication, observers noted.
In response to the crises, the CPC was able to seek truth from facts and be flexible, as well as to be free from prejudice and ideological bias, encouraging local exploration and innovation, Zhao said.
In another striking and more recent example, the Party has managed to bid farewell to an unhealthy obsession with GDP growth that regards GDP statistics as the core or even the only indicator for assessing government performance, which stoked concerns over high GDP numbers at the expense of the environment and economic imbalance.
For instance, in August 2014, East China's Fujian Province cancelled the GDP assessment in 34 counties and cities, and implemented the evaluation method of giving priority to agriculture and ecological protection.
Aerial
photo taken on Sept. 17, 2020 shows the Houhai area in Nanshan District
of Shenzhen, south China's Guangdong Province. Photo:xinhua
Reform and opening-up
Just as the CPC is very swift in correcting mistakes, it is also profoundly persistent and steadfast in carrying out scientific policies - another pillar of the CPC's economic success.
The milestone Third Plenum of the 11th CPC Central Committee in December 1978 has been widely known as a starting point for the economy's 40-plus years of reform and opening-up, ushering in a transition from a class struggle-themed Party platform to a focus on economic building.
The main resistance force came from people's fear of capitalism, thinking that opening to the outside world would alchemize New China. With keen observation on the world's development in economy and science and technology, Deng Xiaoping launched the opening-up policy, pushing aside all hesitance and skepticism.
In early 1982, the Shekou industrial zone in Shenzhen was criticized by some for planning to hire a foreign business manager. When Deng learned this, he immediately applauded the decision, saying that it's OK to hire foreigners as managers and it is no traitorous behavior.
The reform of the country's state-owned enterprises (SOE) is an evocative story of the country's undaunted approach to boosting its economy.
By 1987, 80 percent of the country's state-owned enterprises (SOEs) adopted various forms of the contracted managerial responsibility system. Some enterprises even began to undertake shareholding system reforms.
Graphic:GT
In the first quarter of 1996, the country's 68,800 SOEs, as a whole, recorded their first net loss since the founding of the PRC.
After the pain comes the result. From 1989 to 2001, though the number of SOEs dropped to 46,800 from 102,300, their total industrial added value increased to 1.47 trillion yuan from 389.5 billion yuan, surging 11.67 percent annually.
Despite tremendous success over the past several decades, difficulties and hurdles never ceased to test China's commitment to the reform and opening-up policies today.
The thorn-covered yet high-yielding road to reform and opening-up, as such, was being paved as efforts to liberate thoughts and the bold push for innovation trickled in. With an endeavor to sustain liberation on multiple fronts for there to be even deeper reforms, China finally pushed through.
In 2020, China overtook the US to become the world's top destination for new foreign direct in-vestment. In the first five months of 2021 alone, China attracted 18,497 new foreign-funded firms and 481 billion yuan in foreign capital.
Graphic:GT
Self-sufficiency, innovation-driven
However, increasingly opening up to the outside world does not mean China will not mitigate seri-ous risks for its national and economic security. Since the earlier days of the CPC's leadership, self-sufficiency in many core sectors such as food and technology was a major focus, which has also become a key code to the CPC's success.
In an early sign of a self-reliant approach to development, by 1964, the self-sufficiency rate of China's main machinery and equipment had reached over 90 percent. With construction of the Daqing oilfield completed and Shengli and Dagang oilfields under development, China achieved total self-sufficiency in oil by 1965.
Since then, that quest for self-sufficiency in many areas, including technological innovation, has never stopped and has helped lift China to a world-leading global technological power in many areas - from 5G to high-speed rails, and from new-energy vehicles to space exploration technologies.
Just last week, China pulled off the country's first-ever automated fast rendezvous and docking of a manned spacecraft with China's orbiting space station core cabin, after the Shenzhou-12 manned spacecraft was successfully launched on the Long March-2F Y12 carrier rocket.
China's considerable technological prowess has already unnerved the US, which has been a domi-nant player for decades.
The CPC's focus on self-sufficiency and innovation-driven strategy was particularly notable in the country's efforts to mitigate an increasingly hostile external environment marked by a relentless attempt by the US to contain China's rise.
Even before the US' crackdown campaign, the focus on self-dependence and technological innova-tion was highlighted as the CPC convened its 19th National Congress in October 2017, where a new era of China's socialism was declared. The Party's 18th National Congress also introduced an innovation-driven development strategy.
Since then, in a series of meetings and top policy documents, the CPC has constantly stepped up efforts to pursue efficiency in a wide range of areas, from semiconductors to crop seeds.
"Against the backdrop of an intensifying China-US rivalry, China may face rising risks of high-tech blocks, supply chain obstruction, or further trade disputes. What China needs to do is focus on its own business and concentrate on overcoming the difficulties in key technologies, equipment, raw materials and design software that are being held back by Western countries, and coordinate devel-opment and security," said Zhao.
As these new challenges emerge, while China is no longer the backward, war-torn country it was 7 decades ago, challenges and risks, both domestic and foreign, remain. With the CPC's firm leader-ship and its proven successful economic policymaking, China is better positioned than ever to reach its bold development goal of becoming a modern socialist power in the coming decades, analysts said.
A healthcare worker holds a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine arranged at the University Hospital in Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia, on Tuesday, March 2,2021. The first phase of the vaccine roll-out that will run through April involves about 500,000 frontliners comprising health-care, defense and security personnel, as well as teachers with co-morbidities, according to the government. Photographer: Samsul Said/Bloomberg
Of course not. The Covid-19 and its variants do not discriminate between race, creed or borders. They simply infect everyone indiscriminately, so the only defence is vaccines and social distancing.
But the handling of the pandemic has become intensely political along racial, class and national lines. To debate whether it should be called a China virus or an Indian variant is racist by implication. What matters urgently is how each individual, community or nation handles the pandemic. To distribute to the rich and powerful first before the poor and weak is discriminatory, but that is exactly what has happened in many countries.
The virus transmits through people. The epidemiologists suggest that minimising people travel and contacts would slow the transmission.
Those who care more about money object to shutting down the economy. Asians reacted more quickly by adopting masks and staying at home.
The West cared more about individualism and objected to masks, allowing the pandemic to get out of control.
But money and vaccines have begun to bring matters under control, except that if the coronavirus and its variants continue to spread in countries which cannot afford vaccines or can’t get enough supplies, no one is safe.
Thus, a microscopic virus has opened up the Pandora’s Box of almost all social divisions that were ignored and unaddressed. It is clear that science and technology, as well as competent organisation, plus mass cooperation would be the way to solve the pandemic.
But these three factors require trust that everyone should be protected justly.
The record so far shows that those governments which preach democracy, equality and rules-based order may be practising something rather different.
Why is it that in the United States, Pacific Islander, Latino and Black Americans have double the Covid-19 death rate than White and Asian Americans?
Israel is leading in the world vaccination rollout, and yet Palestinians have been slow to get vaccines. The UN Human Rights body has called the Israeli differential treatment of Palestinians “morally and legally unacceptable”.
Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian territory since the 1967 war, and even in the Holy Month, physically raided the Al Aqsa Mosque, sparking off the current conflict that has raged on in the middle of the pandemic.
This is not an equal fight. More than 200 Palestinians have been killed, including 64 children, versus 12 dead in Israel. More than 58,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been rendered homeless and Israelis have knocked out the only lab in the territory that processes covid tests.
An Arab-Israeli member of the Israeli Parliament has openly called the Israel action in Jerusalem as “ethnic cleansing”. The Israeli government can ignore world opinion because of the US’ strong backing.
The humanitarian crisis in Palestine is beyond a tragedy. But the Israel-Palestinian crisis shows how science and technology play a role in turning a David to a Goliath, switching the roles from victims of the Holocaust to become perpetrators of Occupation by might alone.
As geopolitical futurist George Friedman writes about “Gaza: Morality and Reality”, the moral question is extremely complex because both sides see themselves as victims.
In his geopolitical realist view, as long as Israel holds the greater military superiority, with the backing of the strongest military power of all – the United States – the conflict will not be resolved by anyone else.
This point is fully understood by the Israelis, who were scattered and not particularly powerful as a wandering people until 1947. But it was their brains and deep application of science and technology that overcame the Palestinian and Arab numerical superiority.
There are 1-2-3 options for the Israel-Palestine situation. If Israel-occupied territory were to be governed as one country, the demographics would favour the Palestinians with higher birth rates, so this solution was ruled out.
Logic suggests that perhaps a two-country solution of a separate Palestine and Israel state would be possible. The rest of the world supports this option, but the Palestinians are divided into the Fatah faction controlling the West Bank and the Hamas controlling Gaza. This creates a three-state possibility. Indeed, the greater the division between its enemies and their supporters, the more secure Israel’s position. This is classic “divide and rule” domination exercised by imperial colonials.
The Egyptian economist Samir Amin summed up this perennial Arab dilemma, commenting on the 2011 Arab Spring.
If it succeeds, then the Arab world will break out of the imperialist centre’s control. If it fails, then the Arab world will remain in “its current status as a submissive periphery, prohibiting its elevation to the rank of an active participant in shaping the world”.
Samir’s critique of Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation saw a capitalist centre comprising America, Europe and Japan, controlling a periphery of the rest.
This is achieved through five monopolies over technology, financial control, monopoly access to natural resources, media and communications, and weapons of mass destruction. The Israelis understood these perfectly and exploited them to achieve success and survival.
Thus, Israeli devotion to science and technology, military equipment, media and communications and their lobbying power playing guilt on the Eurocentric countries, ensure their dominance over the Palestinian and Arab opponents.
This is why faith or ideology alone will not control the pandemic, because it is through science and organisational power that domination continues over the weak and oppressed.
The Arab world may have physical control over much of the fossil-fuel natural resources, but as long as they remain technologically backward and divided, they will always be victims.
So, the coronavirus is not racist.
Guns do not kill people, people kill or dominate other people.
Friedman is right. Might decides geopolitical reality. For him and his ilk, morality is for the victim to complain and the victor to preach.
Those who do not learn from history will remain its victims.
Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.
1.jpeg)
.jpeg)
