Beijing says that sales ‘seriously’ violate one-China principle and 3 China-US joint communiques

China on Sunday deplored and “firmly” opposed US arms sales to Taiwan, saying it “seriously” violates the one-China principle and the three Beijing-Washington joint communiques.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that Beijing has lodged “serious” protests to the US over the latest arms sales, according to the state-run Xinhua news agency.

Washington on Saturday announced that it has approved $385 million worth of arms sales to Taiwan.

“The US arms sales to China’s Taiwan region seriously violate the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiques, especially the August 17 Communique of 1982 and China’s sovereignty and security interests,” the spokesperson said.

The decision to sell arms to Taiwan is simply inconsistent with US leaders’ commitment of not supporting “Taiwan independence,” Beijing further said.

“We call on the US to immediately stop arming Taiwan and stop abetting and supporting ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces in seeking ‘Taiwan independence’ by building up its military,” the spokesperson said, adding: “China will take strong and resolute countermeasures to firmly defend national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.”

Source

The post China ‘firmly’ opposes US arms sales to Taiwan appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi also said he would seek to boost investment in the country at a meeting with his Central Asian counterparts

China is keen to expand energy cooperation with Turkmenistan, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Saturday.

Wang met his counterpart Rashid Meredov, who is also Turkmenistan’s vice-president, on the sidelines of the China-Central Asia Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Chengdu, state news agency Xinhua reported.

Wang also said China was willing to further expand the scale of trade and investment cooperation with Turkmenistan and would encourage more Chinese enterprises to invest in the country.

The meeting, which ends on Sunday, was also attended by the foreign ministers of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, Central Asian partners that are growing in importance for China.

Wang also met Jeenbek Kulubaev, the foreign minister of Kyrgyzstan, a key player in an US$8 billion rail project that starts in Kashgar in China’s western Xinjiang region and goes through southwest Kyrgyzstan before ending in Andijan in eastern Uzbekistan.

The rail project is designed to cut the freight journey between China and Europe by 900km (560 miles), serving as a faster and cheaper alternative to existing China-Europe land routes, most of which pass through Russia.

The project was first proposed in the 1990s but had been beset by a series of technical, political and geopolitical problems before the three countries reached an agreement in June.

While in Chengdu, Wang also met his Nepalese counterpart Arzu Rana Deuba on Friday.

Deuba was visiting to prepare for the visit of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, which starts on Monday.

According to the Nepalese foreign ministry, the talks focused on trade, tourism and connectivity projects – including a cross-border railway project and a tunnel linking the capital Kathmandu to Chhahare in Nuwakot district, a stop on a major trade route between the two countries.

“China is ready to work with Nepal to embrace new prospects for the development of China-Nepal relations by taking the opportunity of the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties next year,” Wang said, adding that the two sides had made joint efforts to promote cooperation.

Deuba said Nepal appreciated the concept of building a community with a shared future for humanity, and was willing to take part in President Xi Jinping’s Global Development Initiative.

Source

The post China seeks to boost energy ties with Turkmenistan appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Sunday met with Tajikistan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sirojiddin Muhriddin in the city of Chengdu, southwest China’s Sichuan Province, with both sides vowing to deepen all-round cooperation.

China supports Tajikistan in pursuing a development path suited to its own national conditions and opposes any external interference in the internal affairs of Tajikistan, said Wang, who is also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee.

He called on the two sides to help each other’s development and revitalization with tangible cooperation results.

Muhriddin, who is in Chengdu to attend the fifth China-Central Asia Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, expressed gratitude for China’s strong support for improving Tajik people’s livelihoods.

Tajikistan will never change its position of firmly adhering to the one-China principle and is willing to deepen all-round cooperation with the Chinese side and welcome more Chinese enterprises to invest in Tajikistan, he added.

Source

The post China, Tajikistan vow to deepen all-round cooperation appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

The plant will produce nacelles, hubs and towers for wind power projects.
Kazakhstan’s Samruk-Kazyna state fund and China’s SANY Renewable Energy (SANY RE) have begun construction of a $114 million wind turbine component manufacturing plant in the Zhambyl region, marking a step in the country’s renewable energy sector.
The plant, which is set to begin operations in late 2025, will produce essential components such as nacelles, hubs and towers for wind power plants. The project is a key initiative in Kazakhstan’s strategy to boost renewable energy production and reduce dependence on traditional energy sources.

Nurlan Zhakupov, chairman of the board of Samruk-Kazyna, stressed the importance of the initiative:

“This [involves] attracting $114 million in foreign direct investment. The project will be implemented without additional loans from Kazakhstan’s development institutions. The level of localization will be at least 30%. To support this, SANY RE plans to establish a new R&D center.”

Samruk-Kazyna aims to put 6 GW of renewable energy sources into operation by 2030 in collaboration with its partners, addressing Kazakhstan’s growing energy demands while promoting sustainable development.

SANY Renewable Energy is a division of SANY Group, a leading Chinese engineering and manufacturing company. The company’s expertise in renewable energy technology aligns with Kazakhstan’s drive for cleaner energy solutions.

Founded in 2008, Samruk-Kazyna manages key strategic assets in Kazakhstan, including major corporations such as Air Astana, Kazatomprom and KazMunayGas, which play a vital role in the nation’s economic development.

Source

The post Kazakhstan and China partner for Sany wind turbine plant appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Sunday met with Kazakhstan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Murat Nurtleu in the city of Chengdu, southwest China’s Sichuan Province, with both sides expressing willingness to further promote cooperation.

Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, pointed out that comprehensively deepening bilateral cooperation serves the common interests of the two countries and the common expectations of the two peoples.

Noting both countries are at a critical stage of development and revitalization, Wang said that the two sides should fully implement the important consensus reached by the leaders of the two countries and consolidate political mutual trust, firmly supporting each other.

He also urged efforts to promote the high-quality construction of the Belt and Road cooperation and the building of a China-Kazakhstan community with a shared future.

Nurtleu, who is in Chengdu to attend the fifth China-Central Asia Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, said the Kazakh side regards China as a reliable and permanent comprehensive strategic partner and a diplomatic priority.

Kazakhstan is willing to strengthen the docking of development strategies with China, implement the important consensus of the two heads of state and build a new “golden 30 years” of bilateral relations, he added.

Source

The post China, Kazakhstan committed to further cooperation appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

In October 2024, China’s first comprehensive regulation to tighten state control over the critical sector of rare earth resources took effect. Coming amid the global transition towards clean energy, the regulation demonstrates China’s increased leverage of its rare earth monopoly to outpace its geopolitical rivals like the United States, which remains far behind China in this sector. Intensified competition for rare earth elements risks overshadowing collaborative efforts to develop clean technology.

Mountain Pass, owned by MP Materials, is the only large-scale rare earth mining and processing facility in North America. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

In the race to develop clean technology, major polluting countries like the United States and China compete to lead in producing renewable energy products, striving to achieve environmental goals while enhancing national competitiveness. Rare earth elements (REE) — a group of 17 soft, heavy chemical elements — are major components for clean technologies like wind turbines, electric vehicles, and solar panels. The International Energy Agency projects that demand for REE could rise to 3–7 times current levels by 2040. Consequently, Western powers, such as the United States and the European Union, are under increasing pressure to secure essential REE for clean technologies needed to transition to a low-carbon economy. However, limited access to REE could hinder their ability to meet these goals.

China’s Monopoly in the Rare Earth Sector

Despite US dominance in rare earth mining from the 1960s to 1980s, environmental movements and regulatory pressures eventually led companies to relocate to China or close the US mines. Subsequently, China’s low costs, fuelled by state subsidies and lax environmental standards, allowed it to surpass the United States in the rare earth industry. Currently, China dominates the rare earth supply chain, controlling approximately 60 per cent of global mining operations, over 85 per cent of processing capacity, and more than 90 percent of permanent magnet production.

Trade frictions between China and the United States, the world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters, are particularly hindering progress in the clean energy transition. In September 2024, the United States raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles to 100 per cent and significantly increased tariffs on other Chinese green technologies, including solar products. However, heavy reliance on China for the rare earths needed for the United States to independently produce these technologies has raised concerns that this dependency could become a significant vulnerability in the escalating tech war.

Global reserves of rare earths outside China include 19 per cent in Vietnam, 18 per cent in Brazil, 6 per cent in India, and 4 per cent in Australia. However, while alternative sources exist among these countries that the United States or its allies are friendly with, scaling up production to meet increasing demand remains a substantial challenge. For instance, China’s exceptional processing capacity of 220,000 tonnes per year — five times the combined capacity of the rest of the world — would take other countries years to match.

China’s Leverage of Rare Earth Elements

China is increasingly weaponising its dominance in REE to impose costs on its rivals in trade disputes. The resulting market dynamics are seen as producing externalities that adversely affect foreign clean technology businesses dependent on Chinese rare earth exports, potentially slowing the transition to renewable energy.

In October 2024, China’s first comprehensive regulation on rare earth resources took effect. As illegal mining and smelting have persisted in the country, the regulations introduce stringent rules governing the mining, refining and separation, metal smelting, integrated utilisation, product distribution, import and export of rare earths. Companies violating the regulations may face fines of 5–10 times their illegal gains. Consequently, rare earth supplies are expected to tighten, and prices of REE are expected to increase.

The regulation is seen as a move that could undermine the competitiveness of foreign clean technology products reliant on China-supplied rare earths as business would pass these higher costs on to their customers. Ultimately, the adoption of clean technologies like wind turbines and electric vehicles in countries like the United States could be slowed.

Earlier, in June 2024, Beijing declared rare earth resources to be state-owned and placed the industry under government oversight, ensuring product traceability. While framed as securing national and industrial interests, the move is widely seen as ensuring leverage in the ongoing trade dispute between the United States and China.

The new regulation extends China’s previous leverage over its control of the entire rare earth supply chain. In December 2023, China banned the export of technology for manufacturing rare earth magnets, which are essential components in many clean energy technologies, such as wind turbines. Additionally, in January 2022, Beijing banned foreign direct investment in rare earth mining projects. The ban was described as having “injected even more urgency” into Western efforts to diversify their mineral supply chains away from China.

Furthermore, the Chinese government is reportedly planning to offer direct grants and low-interest loans to its rare earth industry. Such a move would lower operating costs and allow Chinese companies to thrive in market conditions that are challenging to others, thereby dominating global processing capacity.

Obstacles to US Efforts to Reduce Dependence on China

China’s geopolitical rivals view Beijing’s rare earth monopoly as “a risk to national security” because of their strong dependence on Chinese exports.

As a challenger of China in the competition for developing clean technology, the United States is actively investing in various stages within the REE supply chain to reduce its reliance on China. Through its Manufacturing Capability Expansion and Investment Program, the US Defense Department (DOD) has launched a five-year strategy to establish a full domestic rare earth supply chain, covering sourcing, separation, processing, metallisation, alloying and magnet manufacturing. Australia’s Lynas Rare Earths, the only commercial-scale source of separated rare earths outside of China, received over US$258 million from the DOD to establish a production facility in Texas. Additionally, the DOD awarded US$45 million to MP Materials, which claims to be the “only scaled producer of rare earth materials in the Western Hemisphere”, to enhance domestic light and heavy rare earth processing capacity.

However, such efforts would not result in immediate challenges to China. The United States still lacks a complete domestic value chain from mining to magnet production. One of the primary reasons is that mining projects in the United States often have long lead times, with records indicating it takes around 16 years to complete permits and construction for production to begin.

The United States has also launched the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP) with key countries like Australia, which ranks just behind China in “exploration investment, reserves, and capital expenditure”; India, known for its manufacturing capabilities; and Japan, which plays a major role in financing. This partnership aims to address supply chain vulnerabilities in essential minerals like REE.

Nevertheless, as of 2024, MSP has seen minimal investment and lacks technological expertise, raising doubts about the partnership’s capacity to be a feasible alternative to China. Additionally, environmental concerns could be a significant hurdle to developing the partner countries’ rare earth mining or production capability. Each ton of rare earth produced generates 13 kilograms of dust, 9,600–12,000 cubic metres of waste gas, 75 cubic metres of wastewater, and one ton of radioactive residue, all of which have harmful health effects. Notably, Mountain Pass, the only large-scale rare earth mine and separation facility in North America, closed in 2002 after a toxic waste spill and remained shut for years. US mining companies are also struggling to recruit skilled workers, slowing down the US ambition to boost its domestic production capability.

Conclusion

Geopolitical tensions over resources and technology are hampering the clean energy transition. Energy transition is not intended to be a zero-sum game as all can benefit from clean energy products in a free trade situation, and therefore from reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions. However, growing supply chain fragmentation increasingly sees major economies prioritising supply security through the lens of national self-interest. Additionally, the intensified drive for rare earth extraction could further environmental degradation, thereby undermining global efforts to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.

Although it is unlikely that other countries will surpass China in rare earth production in the foreseeable future, a promising pathway to create a less polarised geopolitical landscape around REE and to reduce pollution is emerging in the form of recycling this resource from obsolete equipment.

From an economic perspective, recycling processes can be implemented more rapidly than the development of new mines, which typically requires decades for them to become commercially viable. From an environmentally friendly perspective, recycling reduces the need for new rare earth mining, thereby decreasing both the environmental and energy footprints associated with extraction and processing.

China’s strategy of leveraging its rare earth monopoly is highly effective in the short term but it may not retain the same level of influence over the long term. By 2050, reuse and recycling strategies could meet 30–40 per cent of rare earth mineral demand in the United States, China, and Europe. Although Beijing is likely to maintain its monopoly in the rare earth supply chain, increased circularity could gradually reduce other countries’ dependence on China, ultimately diminishing its geopolitical leverage over this critical resource.

Hu Xinyue is a Senior Analyst in the China Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).

The post Rare Earth Supremacy: China’s Ace in the Clean Technology Competition appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

As Victoria Nuland steps down, she gets real about a world on fire.

Victoria Nuland has long been known as a relentless, even pugnacious, U.S. diplomat, with a strong belief in American power. The approach sometimes got her in trouble, but it rarely held her back.

Nuland recently left the State Department after serving at its highest levels, first as the Biden administration’s undersecretary of State for political affairs, and, for several months, acting deputy secretary of State. She previously was a career diplomat who held an array of roles under presidents both Republican and Democratic; her first posting more than three decades ago was as a consular officer in China.

In an exit interview with POLITICO Magazine, Nuland discussed her time in public service — dismissing chatter that she was passed over for a promotion — as well as her views on where American foreign policy has gone wrong and right.

Notably, she said the United States was not quick enough to realize and prevent the expansionist ambitions of both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

A longtime champion of Ukraine and the effort to counter Russia, she also warned about the perils of Donald Trump blowing up NATO if he wins back the White House in November.

“Don’t throw it out,” she said of the trans-Atlantic alliance, “because you would never be able to re-create it again.”

The following has been edited for length and clarity:

How’s life on the outside?

Life is wonderful. I am doing a lot of projects that I had put off, seeing a lot of people that I love, and I’m staying involved in ways that are meaningful. I’m speaking on foreign policy issues I care about — whether it is Ukraine or ensuring that the United States leads strongly in the world. I’m getting a chance to prepare for my classes in the fall and work with the next generation of foreign policy leaders. I’ll be at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs.

Why leave the Biden administration, really? People said you felt passed over for the deputy secretary of State job. Is that true?

I actually didn’t compete for the deputy secretary of State job. I loved being undersecretary for political affairs. I love working with Secretary [Antony] Blinken. But as you know, I’ve done three years altogether and I’ve done eight months plus in both jobs, and so it was just the right time for me and my family to do something different.

Do you have any regrets from your time in the role?

I think whenever you finish a job like this, you wish you’d been able to do more on more issues. Travel more, touch more people, get more done faster, ensure the U.S. was leading strongly on as many continents as possible, mentor more of the next generation. And you’re always constrained by time, by resources, by the crises that overwhelm the inbox. So you always want to have done more.

Can Ukraine win this war against Russia? And how do you define winning?

Let’s start with the fact that Putin has already failed in his objective. He wanted to flatten Ukraine. He wanted to ensure that they had no sovereignty, independence, agency, no democratic future — because a democratic Ukraine, a European Ukraine, is a threat to his model for Russia, among other things, and because it’s the first building block for his larger territorial ambitions.

Can Ukraine succeed? Absolutely. Can Ukraine come out of this more sovereign, more economically independent, stronger, more European than it is now? Absolutely. And I think it will. But we’ve got to stay with it. We’ve got to make sure our allies stay with it.

And we have to accelerate a lot of the initiatives that were in the supplemental, like helping Ukraine build that highly deterrent military force of the future, like deploying these longer-range weapons to strategic effect, like ensuring that the critical infrastructure and the energy sector are protected, like building up our own defense industrial base and that of our allies and Ukraine’s again, so that we and Ukraine are building faster than Russia and China.

But can it get all its territory back, including Crimea?

It can definitely get to a place where it’s strong enough, I believe, and where Putin is stymied enough to go to the negotiating table from a position of strength. It’ll be up to the Ukrainian people what their territorial ambitions should be. But there are certain things that are existential.

Any deal that they cut in their interest and in the larger global interest has to be a deal that Putin is compelled to stick to. We can’t be doing this every six months, every three years. It has to actually lead to a deal that includes Russian withdrawal.

Putin is a master at what we call rope-a-dope negotiating, where he never actually cuts the deal. It has to be a deal that ensures that whatever is decided on Crimea, it can’t be remilitarized such that it’s a dagger at the heart of the center of Ukraine.

Was it a mistake not to push the Ukrainians harder to go for some sort of negotiated end to the war in 2022, especially the fall of 2022?

They were not in a strong enough position then. They’re not in a strong enough position now. The only deal Putin would have cut then, the only deal that he would cut today, at least before he sees what happens in our election, is a deal in which he says, “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.” And that’s not sustainable.

You’ve had a long career, especially when it comes to Europe. Where did the U.S. go wrong in its understanding of Russia?

With regard to both Russia and China, after the end of the Cold War, the prevailing wisdom among all of us — right, left and center — was that if you could knit Moscow and Beijing into the open and free global order that we had benefited from for so many years, that they would become prosperous, and they would become strong contributing members of that order. And that’s what we tried for a very long time.

That works if you have a leadership that is fundamentally accepting the current system. But once you have leaders who are telling their populations that this system keeps their country down, doesn’t allow it to have its rightful place, that has a territorial definition of greatness, that is bent on economic, political and or military coercion — that’s antithetical to this order, and then our policy has to change.

Did we realize fast enough Putin’s ambitions and Xi Jinping’s ambitions, and did we do enough to ensure that those ambitions stayed inside their own nations and didn’t spill out and coerce others? 20/20 hindsight? Probably not.

How much of it comes down to what particular guy is running the show? I sometimes wonder, could things be different if it wasn’t Putin in charge? If it wasn’t Xi? How much of it comes down to the dude at the top?

In highly centralized societies, which both China and Russia have historically been, without an electoral refresh of the kind that we all go through in the democratic world, it matters hugely, because it’s that human who’s defining what greatness means. It’s that human who’s deciding how to maintain order in that society. It’s that human — allowing them to speak, allowing a free press, allowing protests, allowing alternative political parties — who’s going to shape the options. And that constrains obviously the kind of relationship we can have.

What is the lesson we should learn about foreign policy in general when it comes to the experiences we’ve had in Russia and China?

We should always try to talk both to leaders and to people, to the extent that we’re allowed. We should always offer an opportunity to work together in common interest.

But if the ideology is inherently expansionist, is inherently illiberal, is inherently trying to change the system that benefits us, we’ve got to build protections and resilience for ourselves, for our friends and allies, and particularly for those neighbors of those countries who are likely to be on the front line of that first push.

Where do you see the Israel-Hamas war heading?

Essentially, there are two paths on the table. There is continuing this war with all of the destruction and horror and lack of clarity about how you end Hamas’ reign of terror.

The other path is the route that the administration and allies and partners and a lot of countries in the Gulf are pushing, and a lot of Israelis want, which is: a hostage deal leads to a long-term cease-fire, leads to a better future for Palestinians both in the West Bank and in Gaza, leads to Saudi-Israel normalization and a path to two states, and a region where the ideology and the violence that Hamas is offering is beaten by more opening, more opportunity, more peace, more stability.

Are you saying that because you believe it or because it’s the Biden administration’s position?

I’m saying it because, anything other than that, this is going to happen again and again and again.

If you could go back in time on that one, what, if anything, should the U.S. have done differently?

Beginning with the Trump administration, everybody fell in love with regional normalization as the cure-all for the instability and grievances and insecurity in the Middle East. And that’s a part of it.

But if you leave out the Palestinian issue, then somebody’s going to seize it and run with it, and that’s what Hamas did. I also think that both we and the Israelis knew too little about the terror state that had been established in Gaza.

You’re going to be teaching at Columbia, the epicenter of campus protests over this situation. If you could offer these protesters some advice as someone with significant policymaking experience, what would it be?

Peaceful protest is part of the fabric of who we are and the fact that we allow it, and the Chinese don’t and the Russians don’t, makes us Americans. But when that protest becomes violent, when it impinges on other people’s human rights or denigrates others, then you veer toward coercion.

So, express your views, ask for concrete paths forward. But stay away from violence, make sure that it’s actually indigenous to the campus, that you’re not becoming the tool of outside agitators. And be respectful of alternative views as you expect people to respect your views.

What if you are peaceful? And you say what you want and the people in charge just say, ‘Oh, that’s very nice, thank you,’ and then they ignore you and they keep doing what they’ve been doing for years. How do you do just keep pushing on that front? Do you join the government?

I would certainly say if you care enough to devote all day, every day to political change, come join the folks who are setting policy, commit your life to public service. I didn’t expect that that’s where my life would lead, but it’s been incredibly rewarding.

There are many, many ways to change policy, but being on the inside is not only extremely rewarding, but you can actually get stuff done.

If Trump wins, and leaves NATO or limits America’s role in NATO, does the alliance fall apart? What happens?

First and foremost, America suffers. Because if you look at every single one of the challenges we have globally, even as we make the security commitment to Europe, it is the European countries who have contributed more to Ukraine — on the security side, on the economic side, etc. It is the European countries who have to adapt their policies toward China if you want to have an impact on China’s eagerness to coerce others. It’s the European countries who we need to help fund the Haiti mission, to help defeat terrorism in Africa, and provide prosperity.

If we are not part of that family, on a daily basis, we are standing alone, our own influence in the world is greatly reduced, and we have no influence over how they choose to spend their energy and resources. And they’re less powerful in doing it without us.

What about this idea that look, we’re the U.S. at the end of the day. We’re the superpower. Whether we’re in NATO or not, people are going to come along with us. Isn’t there something to that argument?

I’ve worked for six presidents, Republicans and Democrats. I always believed that a new president with a fresh mandate from the American people should look at every global problem with fresh eyes, bring new solutions, and should have that opportunity, working with Congress, working with the American people, working with allies and partners.

That’s a different thing than turning your back on bedrock, bipartisan institutions and policies that have protected Americans and advanced our own prosperity and global influence for 70 years.

Why do you want to throw out what’s working and what benefits us for no other reason than you’ve had a fit of pique? Work within the institution to make it work better. Don’t throw it out, because you would never be able to re-create it again.

Does the rest of the world fear the United States?

Is fear what we want from the rest of the world?

Sometimes.

I think what we want from the rest of the world is they see us leading in a manner that advances their own security, advances their own prosperity, creates this community of nations that can handle global problems — whether they are terrorist problems, whether they are health problems, whether they’re environmental problems — and we do it in a primarily self-interested but unselfish way, and we’re creating that community.

They should only fear us if they’re opponents of a largely liberal democratic way of advancing human prosperity. And in that context, if they are viciously invading a neighbor, if they are coercing a little state because they can, then I hope they would fear our reaction and the reaction that we will build with other democracies who want to protect the system that favors freedom.

Do you ever plan to go back into government?

I love what I did for 35 years. I’ve always loved it. And I continue to love it. So in the right circumstances, of course.

Source: Politico

The post She Was at the Top of the State Department. Now She’s Ready to Talk appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

SINGAPORE – The Chinese embassy in Singapore on March 18 asked its citizens in the Republic to “stay away” from gambling, adding that cross-border gambling violates Chinese laws.

The embassy, in a statement on its official WeChat account, “solemnly reminded” Chinese citizens in Singapore to steer clear of gambling, which is strictly prohibited by law in China.

“Even if overseas casinos are opened legally, cross-border gambling by Chinese citizens is suspected of violating the laws of our country and face the risk of punitive actions,” said the embassy, warning that embassies may not be able to provide consular protection for illegal gambling violations.

Using a Chinese idiom to describe how 10 out of 10 bets lead to cheating incidents or losses, the embassy said in its notice that people who gamble face the risk of running up debts, financial ruin and the destruction of their families.

Cross-border gambling may also be related to illegal activities not limited to scams, money laundering, kidnapping and smuggling, the embassy added.

Those who know of Chinese citizens operating casinos overseas or approaching fellow Chinese to gamble were also urged to report it through official reporting platforms or to the Singapore police.

In response to a question from Reuters at a news conference in China, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said the country’s position on cross-border gambling is clear, according to Chinese media reports.

He said Chinese capital cannot be invested in overseas casinos, and Chinese citizens are not allowed to run overseas casinos.

Overseas casinos also should not invite Chinese citizens to gamble on their premises, he added.

The Straits Times has contacted the Chinese embassy, Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa for comment.

Apart from state-sanctioned lotteries, gambling is banned in China. But that has prompted organisations such as the Guangdong Club, which operates an online gambling platform, to register itself overseas in Costa Rica.

Special administrative region Macau is the only part of China where gambling activities are legal.

China, through its embassies, has previously reminded its citizens in countries including Malaysia, Italy, Angola, Sri Lanka and South Korea that travelling abroad to gamble is illegal.

China has been working with countries in South-east Asia to deter cross-border gambling.

In September 2023, six Asean member nations – Malaysia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and the Philippines – signed an agreement to collaborate on combatting transnational gambling crime in the region.

The agreement notably targeted organised crime groups that have lured thousands of people to work in casinos or scam compounds under the guise of jobs paying lucrative wages.

Source

The post Chinese embassy urges its citizens in Singapore to ‘stay away’ from gambling appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Brussel, Frankfurt (16/11 – 23)

A levying of embargoes and export bans, the imposition of sanctions, erection of fearsome “license” (= restriction) protocol: there’s nothing new about this back-and-forth in world trade, in the eternal jousting for advantage among markets and nations. The clever Chinese imagined they had the world tea market all locked up until an earnest Scottish botanist carrying the telling name of “Robert Fortune” snuck into the Middle Kingdom to observe their agriculture, steal tea plants, and pick up tricks of tea processing. The Chinese global tea monopoly was busted wide open.

The fortunate Mr. Fortune was actually in the employ of the insidious British East India Company; today tea is happily cultivated on every continent except Antarctica.

The Government of India is currently banning the export of onions. Read it and weep.

The USA did not approve of Japanese expansion throughout Southeast Asia in the late 1930s, and embargoed oil and rubber, among other critical items. This more or less forced Japan to go to war against the west. Thus Pearl Harbor and the ensuing four years of tragedy in the Pacific.

Readers should all be familiar with the European/American sanctions on the Russian Federation, attempting to cripple their economy for having started a “Special Military Operation” to halt the oppression and killing of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. Guess who engineered that mess, a conflict now looking lost and forlorn for the noble democracies.

It’s China’s turn. American politicians, many in the pocket of super-affluent Chinese banks and state-controlled industries, have to be portrayed as “fighting China” so they go through the motions, by imposing chip technology export restrictions on what just happens to be their largest banker, supplier of consumer goods and trading partner.

China now responds, in what is essentially a Punch’n’Judy show, by erecting complex “export license” restrictions on gallium and germanium, rare earths technically classified as “minor metals”, not commonly encountered in nature, or refined as the by-product of other processes.

Note that these materials are used in the production of microchips critical to military applications, so it is not surprising that their export would be curtailed.

The Americans are attempting to impede the development of “advanced microprocessor technology”, a sweeping term covering a very large area of consumer, industrial and official applications, by the PRC.

According to the Critical Raw Materials Alliance (CRMA), an industry organ, China is the source of 80% of the world’s gallium and 60% of its germanium. You can be certain that miners around the globe and digging through their tailings to extract any of this trace material.

The export bans are doomed to fail, just as the manifold sanctions on Russian oil and gas have been handily circumvented by buyers and refiners everywhere.

China, like Russia, is acting carefully and prudently in these reprisals and counter-reprisals, assuming that the USA and its Euro-vassal are skidding downhill, with a soon-to-be-worthless currency, but are still dangerous. In short, the Americans are assumed to be insane.

Pause for a moment and imagine what would happen if the People’s Republic of China, producer of ~90% of the antibiotics sold in the United States of America, decided that they’d prefer to keep their medications at home, just in case, or perhaps market them somewhere else. Or that they would demand payment in Renminbi, on par with the wobbly dollar. No antibiotics? No problem.

That’s how crazy it’s getting.  

The post A Tit-for-Tat with Uncle Sam: China Puts the Screws on Exotic Mineral Exports appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

On November 21, 2023, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan Bakhtiyor Saidov held the first Foreign Ministers’ Strategic Dialogue between China and Uzbekistan in Beijing. The two sides had an all-round and in-depth communication on implementing the important common understandings reached by the two heads of state and strengthening the alignment of development strategies, reached extensive common understandings, and jointly announced the establishment of the mechanism of Foreign Ministers’ Strategic Dialogue between the two countries.

Wang Yi said that China and Uzbekistan are friendly neighbors with a shared future. No matter how the international situation changes, China-Uzbekistan relations have always maintained sound and steady development and been full of vitality. Since last year, President Xi Jinping and President Shavkat Mirziyoyev have successfully paid visits to each other’s country. On the sidelines of the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, the two heads of state held another meeting, agreeing to advance the building of a China-Uzbekistan community with a shared future, and painting a blueprint for the development of bilateral relations. The prime ministers of the two countries also had a productive meeting this year. The close high-level interaction shows the high level and uniqueness of China-Uzbekistan relations, and also demonstrates the distinct features of relations between the two countries featuring mutual respect, good-neighborly friendship, solidarity in trying times, and mutual benefit. China is ready to work with Uzbekistan to make good use of the new platform of China-Uzbekistan Foreign Ministers’ Strategic Dialogue, advance all-round mutually beneficial cooperation and speed up the building of a China-Uzbekistan community with a shared future. To that end, Wang Yi made a four-point proposal.

First, the two countries need to consolidate the belief of solidarity and mutual trust. The two sides need to continue to support each other at crucial moments, and safeguard the political foundation of relations between the two countries and international fairness and justice. The two sides need to advocate and act upon true multilateralism, and make the global governance system more just and equitable.

Second, the two countries need to foster the engine for common development. The two sides need to take high-quality Belt and Road cooperation ushering into a new stage of high-quality development as an opportunity to align the eight major steps to support the joint pursuit of Belt and Road cooperation in a comprehensive way, and speed up common development and prosperity. The two sides need to implement well the medium- to long-term plan for China-Uzbekistan cooperation in economy, trade and investment, and deepen exchanges and cooperation in economy, trade and investment, finance, connectivity, agriculture, energy, and green development, among other fields.

Third, the two countries need to cultivate public opinion for everlasting friendship. The two sides need to host the Culture Day activities in each other’s country, and expand cooperation in the Luban Workshop, education, poverty alleviation, tourism, localities, and construction of the innovative economic zone, among others. China supports Uzbekistan in holding the 2025 Asian Youth Games, and supports the hosting of the first China-Uzbekistan Forum on Local Cooperation.

Fourth, the two countries need to safeguard peace and stability. The two sides need to further strengthen cooperation in counter-terrorism, counternarcotics, cracking down on transnational organized crimes, and cyber- and bio-security. China opposes interference by any forces in Central Asian countries’ internal affairs under any pretexts.

Bakhtiyor Saidov said that President Shavkat Mirziyoyev and President Xi Jinping had successful meetings and maintained close communication, steering the course of Uzbekistan-China relations and opening a new chapter in bilateral cooperation. Uzbekistan values the solid mutual trust between the two heads of state and good neighborliness and friendliness between Uzbekistan and China, supports a series of global initiatives put forth by President Xi Jinping, and will stay committed to the one-China principle, firmly support each other, and deepen strategic mutual trust. Uzbekistan congratulated China on the success of the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation not long ago, which has provided an important platform for promoting the common development and prosperity of all countries. Mutually beneficial and win-win cooperation between Uzbekistan and China is of crucial importance for Uzbekistan to accelerate diversified development. Uzbekistan fully agrees with China’s proposal, and looks forward to deepening all-round cooperation between the two countries in a comprehensive way, so as to take the Uzbekistan-China comprehensive strategic partnership to a new level.

The two sides said that they will further strengthen coordination within such multilateral frameworks as the United Nations, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, promote the building of the China-Central Asia mechanism, and safeguard regional peace, development, security and stability.

The two sides also had an exchange of views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, among others. Wang Yi expounded on China’s principled position, and introduced the recent visit to China by a delegation of Arab-Islamic foreign ministers. Bakhtiyor Saidov highly appreciated China’s efforts to uphold justice, and agreed that the two-state solution must be adhered to so as to jointly promote the just settlement of the Palestinian question.

Source: In China Embassy

The post The First Foreign Ministers’ Strategic Dialogue Between China and Uzbekistan is Held in Beijing appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.