Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)

🔒
❌ À propos de FreshRSS
Il y a de nouveaux articles disponibles, cliquez pour rafraîchir la page.
☐ ☆ ✇ Global South

The Sirius Report: China Makes Major Move In U.S. Backyard

Par : amarynth — 19 décembre 2025 à 18:47

NEW: China Makes Major Move In U.S. Backyardhttps://t.co/wrWmc7GCt3

— The Sirius Report (@thesiriusreport) December 19, 2025

☐ ☆ ✇ Global South

Alastair Crooke: NATO declared to be ‘not forever’ – A critical reading of the new U.S. National Security Strategy

Par : amarynth — 13 décembre 2025 à 10:12

The European ruling strata now stand isolated, widely unpopular and bereft.

Alastair Crooke at Strategic CultureA National Security Strategy (NSS) is produced periodically by U.S. Administrations (Trump authored one during his first term). Mostly these documents lay out an idealised version of an Administration’s foreign and security policy, and do not have great practical import – because of what is left out – i.e. entrenched U.S. political and economic interests; the deep foreign policy consensus overseen by the curator class of the deep security state; and the policies espoused by the mega donor collective.

Nonetheless, this recently-released NSS reads rather differently by putting a distinctive ‘America First’ gloss to U.S. foreign policy, eschewing global hegemony; ‘domination’ and ideological crusades in favour of pragmatic, transactional realism focused on protecting core national interests – homeland security, economic prosperity, and regional dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. thus will “no longer prop up the entire world order like ‘Atlas’ and expects Europe to shoulder more of its own defence burdens”.

It critiques the U.S.’ earlier pursuit of global primacy as ‘a failure’ that ended up weakening America – and situates Trump’s policy as a ‘necessary correction’ to the earlier stance. It therefore accepts the tilt towards a multipolar world.

Two key foreign policy aims are nuanced rather than radically recast:

First, China is downgraded from ‘primary threat’; ‘pacing threat’ to economic competitor (Taiwan is treated as an instrument of deterrence).

And in respect to Russia, it says,

“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state”.

The document does not mention ‘strategic peace’ with Russia, but only a ‘cessation of hostilities’, i.e. a ceasefire. The careful choice of language used may signal that Trump does not intend a full settlement with Russia on its security concerns, but only a truce, a “cessation of hostilities”.

It terms European relations with Russia as “deeply attenuated”:

“The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis”.

Essentially, Ukraine is pushed on the Europeans as their responsibility from now on. More generally, Allies are expected to foot the bills – as the U.S. builds at home.

One of the biggest NSS shifts is that America is defined now as a fortified hemisphere power in place of a global hegemon:

“We want a Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations. In other words, we will assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine”.

In terms of military presence, the Strategy states that this entails “a readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere”.

Perhaps the most meaningful aspect in terms on practical impact is the reference to “ending NATO as an ever-expanding alliance” – and to Europe, which is critiqued in the most astringent terms:

The NSS is highly critical of Europe’s economic stagnation, its demographic decline, the loss of sovereignty to EU institutions and its “civilizational erasure”:

“We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation”.

The document declares the liberal/technocratic elites of the EU and many Member States to be a threat to Europe’s future, regional stability – and to American interests. It makes it clear that supporting the Patriotic Right in Europe, and “cultivating resistance” to Europe’s current trajectory are in the American interest.

It calls out population replacement (immigration) as the gravest long-term threat to Europe and American interests, openly questioning whether some European nations will remain reliable allies given their current trajectory.

The transatlantic relationship therefore remains in place but is no longer the centrepiece of U.S. foreign policy.

The European elite’s panic:

European leaders, including former Swedish PM Carl Bildt, called the NSS reference to Europe as being “to the Right of the extreme Right”. In the U.S., Democrats, such as Rep. Jason Crow, deemed it “catastrophic”. for alliances, i.e. for NATO.

To understand fully the panicked outcry issuing forth from Europe, a little context is required:

Liberal-woke identity politics allowed no ‘otherness’, not difference of opinion.

Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jennifer Rubin (long cited by the Washington Post as their ‘Republican columnist’ for ‘balance’), writing in September 2022, rejected the very notion of an argument having ‘sides’ since any contrary argument imputed a rationality to conservatives:

“We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them – because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again … The Kabuki dance in which Trump, his defenders and his supporters are treated as rational (clever even!) comes from a media establishment that refuses to discard … this false equivalence”.

And then-President Biden, in a speech that same month, said pretty much the same as Rubin: In a set-up bathed eerily in red and black light, at the historic Independence Hall, Biden unequivocally extended the threats from abroad to warn against the threat of a different terror, closer to home – from “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans”, who he said, “represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic”.

The core precept to this apocalyptic message duly crept across the Atlantic to capture and convert the Brussels’ leadership class. This should not be surprising: The EU’s regulation-based internal market was precisely intended to replace all political ‘contention’ with Tech-Managerialism. The Euro-élites were in desperate need of a Values System to fill the EU identity lacuna. The solution, however, was at hand:

“Appetites of the autocrat cannot be appeased. They must be opposed. Autocrats only understand one word: “No.” “No.” “No.” (Applause.). “No, you will not take my country.” “No, you will not take my freedom.” “No, you will not take my future … A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never be able to ease [erase] the people’s love of liberty. Brutality will never grind down the will of the free. And Ukraine — Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never”. (Applause)”.

“Stand with us. We will stand with you. Let us move forward … with an abiding commitment to be allies not of darkness, but of light. Not of oppression, but of liberation. Not of captivity, but, yes, of freedom”.

Biden’s later speech (above) in Warsaw – complete with lighting effects and a dramatic backdrop reminiscent of his Liberty Hall speech – sought to portray the domestic MAGA opposition as a grave security threat to America and lent on radical Manicheanism to depict – this time – Russia (Russia being the external counterpoint to the related U.S. MAGA threat). This was his framing to the epic battle between the forces of light and of darkness that needed to be fought endlessly and won crushingly.

Once again, Biden was trying to cement America’s deep-seated missionary ethos as the ‘City on the Hill’ a beacon to the world – to a ‘forever’ cosmic war against Russian ‘evil’. He hoped to tie the American ruling class to the metaphysical struggle for the ‘light’.

David Brooks, author of Bobos in Paradise, (himself a liberal New York Times columnist), admits that initially he was taken by this liberal ideology, but later admitted this was a big mistake: “Whatever you want to call them [the liberals] have coalesced into an insular, intermarrying Brahmin élite that dominates culture, media, education, and tech”.

He acknowledges: “I didn’t anticipate how aggressively … we would seek to impose élite values through speech and thought codes. I underestimated the way the creative class would successfully raise barriers around itself to protect its economic privilege … And I underestimated our intolerance of ideological diversity”.

Put plainly, this thought-code precisely gave the Euro-élites their shiny new cult of absolute purity and stainless virtue – filling the for the EU its all too evident identity-gap lacuna. It resulted in the summoning of a vanguard whose proselytizing fury is to be focused on ‘the Other’.

Von der Leyen, in giving her ‘State of the Union’ address to the European Parliament in 2022 echoed Biden almost exactly:

“We should not lose sight of the way foreign autocrats are targeting our own countries. Foreign entities are funding institutes that undermine our values. Their disinformation is spreading from the internet to the halls of our universities … These lies are toxic for our democracies. Think about this: We introduced legislation to screen foreign direct investment for security concerns. If we do that for our economy, shouldn’t we do the same for ‘our values’? We need to better shield ourselves from malign interference … We will not allow any autocracy’s Trojan horses to attack ‘our democracies’ from within”.

Despite the cleaving together of the American ‘Bobos’ with the EU liberal warriors, many around the world nonetheless were astonished at the sheer alacrity by which the leadership in Brussels embraced the Biden ‘line’ advocating for a long war against Russia – a compliance that appeared so clearly to run contrary to European economic interests and social stability.

Simply put, it was a war of choice that seemed to be rooted ultimately in radical Manicheanism.

The initial formation of NATO in 1949 was generally opposed by the European Left due to its explicit anti-communist stance. However, with NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the military alliance metamorphosed for some on the broader Left (including social democrats and liberals) as an instrument for liberal transmission and consolidation of ‘our democracy’ (this was Biden’s language at the time).

The fusion of the EU leadership to NATO and with the Biden project was complete. Germany’s Foreign Minister at the time Annalena Baerbock – every bit as intent on “ruining Russia”as Biden – in an address in New York in August 2022, sketched out a vision of a world dominated by the U.S. and Germany. In 1989, President George Bush famously offered Germany a “partnership in leadership”, Baerbock claimed. But at the time, Germany had been too busy with reunification to accept the offer. Today, she said, things had changed fundamentally: “Now the moment has come when we have to create it: A joint partnership in leadership”.

Harking on the ‘leadership partnership’ being understood in military terms, she said:

“In Germany, we have abandoned the long-held German belief in ‘change through trade’ … our goal is to further strengthen the European pillar of NATO… and the EU must become a Union capable of dealing with the United States on an equal footing: in a leadership partnership”.

Thus, the European élite’s outcry at the NSS’ devastating critique of Europe is not just that of America very obviously turning its back on an European ruling class who had dropped all to fawn on America. The NSS castigates their subversion of democracy – and even questions whether they will be suitable as allies for the future.

NATO is now declared to be “not forever”.

The European ruling strata now stand isolated, widely unpopular and bereft.

☐ ☆ ✇ Global South

China Record High Trade Surplus; Decoupling From U.S. A Success As U.S. Tariffs Fail

Par : amarynth — 8 décembre 2025 à 20:51

Paul and Ken assess how China’s economy goes from strength to strength whilst it continues to decouple from the U.S. and demonstrates how U.S. tariffs have been a failure.

☐ ☆ ✇ Global South

Venezuela Denounces U.S. Airspace Threat as Illegal Colonial Aggression

Par : amarynth — 29 novembre 2025 à 22:28

Venezuela reaffirms its sovereign right to control its national airspace, citing international law and anti-colonial principles in response to U.S. pressure.


November 29, 2025 Hour: 3:41 pm

 Venezuela denounces U.S. airspace threat as illegal colonial aggression, demanding full respect for its sovereign skies under international law.

Related: Alarming Signs of U.S. Electromagnetic Interference in the Caribbean


CARACAS — The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has issued a strong diplomatic condemnation of what it describes as a “colonial-style threat” against its national airspace, calling recent statements by the U.S. presidency an “extravagant, illegal, and unjustified aggression” aimed at undermining Venezuela’s sovereignty.

In an official communiqué released on November 29, 2025, Venezuelan authorities denounced a series of social media posts attributed to the U.S. executive branch that, according to Caracas, seek to impose extraterritorial jurisdiction and exert coercive pressure over Venezuela’s civil aviation and territorial integrity.

“These declarations constitute a hostile, unilateral, and arbitrary act,” the government stated, emphasizing that such rhetoric violates the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2, paragraph 4, which explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state.

The statement further accused Washington of advancing a “permanent policy of aggression” against Latin America and the Caribbean—one rooted in what Venezuela terms “colonial motives”—and warned that such actions endanger regional peace and security.


Venezuela Airspace Sovereignty: Legal Foundations and International Law

Venezuela’s response rests firmly on established international aviation law. The government underscored that its sovereignty over national airspace is unequivocally protected under the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, which has been ratified by 193 countries, including the United States.

Article 1 of the Convention clearly states: “Every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.”

This principle is also upheld by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a specialized UN agency that sets global standards for air navigation, safety, and security. Venezuela stressed that no foreign power—not even the U.S.—has the legal authority to dictate, block, or condition the use of its airspace, especially through unilateral statements on social media.

“We will not accept orders, threats, or interference from any foreign power,” the communiqué declared. “Only Venezuela’s constitutional institutions hold authority over our national skies.”

The rebuke comes after reports that the U.S. pressured international airlines to suspend flights linked to Venezuela’s “Plan Vuelta a la Patria” (Return to the Homeland Plan), a humanitarian program that has repatriated 13,956 Venezuelan citizens via 75 organized flights. These citizens, many stranded abroad due to migration crises, have been received “with love and absolute solidarity,” according to the government.

Review the Chicago Convention on international airspace sovereignty (International Civil Aviation Organization)

Explore ICAO’s role in global aviation governance (International Civil Aviation Organization)


Geopolitical Context: A Regional Flashpoint with Global Implications

The Venezuela airspace sovereignty dispute is more than a bilateral spat—it reflects a deepening rift between Washington and the emerging multipolar order in Latin America. For decades, the U.S. has treated the Western Hemisphere as its “backyard,” enforcing policies through sanctions, coups, and military presence.

But Venezuela’s defiance—echoed by allies in Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and parts of the Caribbean—signals a growing rejection of U.S. hegemony. By invoking the language of “colonial aggression,” Caracas frames the airspace issue not as a technical dispute but as part of a historical pattern of imperial overreach.

This stance resonates across the Global South, where many nations view U.S. unilateralism as a threat to their own sovereignty. If Washington can declare another country’s airspace “closed” without UN authorization or multilateral consensus, what prevents it from doing the same to nations in Africa, Asia, or the Middle East?

Moreover, the timing is significant. The threat coincides with Venezuela’s deepening strategic ties with Russia, China, and Iran, as well as its leadership in regional blocs like CELAC and ALBA-TCP. For Washington, reasserting control over Venezuelan airspace may be less about security and more about disrupting these alternative alliances.

Critics warn that such actions could destabilize the entire northern South American region, where civilian air traffic—including medical evacuations, cargo flights, and diplomatic missions—relies on predictable and lawful skies.


A Call to the International Community

Venezuela has formally appealed to the United Nations, sovereign governments, and multilateral organizations to “firmly reject” what it calls an “immoral act of aggression.” The government argues that the U.S. move not only endangers Venezuela but also threatens peace and security across the Caribbean and northern South America.

In its communiqué, Caracas vowed to defend its airspace with “dignity, legality, and the full strength granted by international law,” invoking the anti-imperial legacy of Simón Bolívar, the 19th-century liberator whose vision of a united, sovereign Latin America continues to inspire the Bolivarian Revolution.

“This is not just about flights—it’s about the right of a people to exist free from foreign dictates,” said a Caracas-based analyst. “When a superpower tries to control your skies, it’s really trying to control your destiny.”

The Venezuelan government reaffirmed its commitment to full, peaceful, and lawful use of its airspace, while warning that any further interference will be met with all diplomatic and legal measures available under international law.


Author: JMVR

Source: Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela

☐ ☆ ✇ Global South

Unthinkable: China Banks all Dumping USD Assets As U.S. Carves Up Seized Russian Reserves

Par : amarynth — 24 novembre 2025 à 15:49

Seun Foo

In a big update, China banks are making a move to reducing their balance sheet of dollar assets. Meanwhile, the US has a new plan to carve up Russia’s frozen reserves.

☐ ☆ ✇ Global South

China Just Cut Off the U.S. Smuggling Route for Chinese Rare Earths

Par : amarynth — 4 juin 2025 à 14:18

In May this year, China held an emergency meeting to officially launch the “Thunder Operation” against key strategic minerals such as rare earths, gallium, and germanium.

This is not a simple smuggling crackdown, but a deep cleanup, targeting the entire rare earth laundering chain hidden behind the “third country” and carefully disguised.

Since China has strengthened its restrictions on rare earth exports, many countries have faced resource shortages, especially the United States, which is highly dependent on rare earths.

In order to circumvent the restrictions, they “import in a roundabout way” through third-party countries in large quantities – on the surface, they purchase rare earths from these countries, but in fact, they obtain Chinese resources through transshipment. The whole process is secretive and complicated.

So, who is secretly reselling Chinese rare earths to the United States? And what impact will China’s further crackdown on the resale of rare earths have on the United States?

☐ ☆ ✇ Global South

India-Pakistan Air Clash as A Simulation of China US Military Rivalry

Par : amarynth — 9 mai 2025 à 16:48
The ongoing India-Pakistan air clash is dethroning U.S. military dominance in the eyes of a watching world
Hu Xijin – Former Editor-in-Chief of Global Times at China Academy

We are witnessing a historic turning point unfolding in the skies over Kashmir—one that could reshape global perceptions of great-power military capabilities.

On May 7, the Pakistani military announced that it had shot down six Indian warplanes during a pre-dawn clash. The Indian government had not issued an official response. However, Indian media, citing government sources, reported that at least three Indian Air Force jets had crashed in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Local residents filmed wreckage believed to be from Indian Rafale fighter jets, leading many observers to consider Pakistan’s claim of downing six Indian jets as largely credible.

If confirmed, this would be a major battlefield success for Pakistan’s air defense system, reportedly made in China. It would also mean that Chinese-made systems outperformed jets supplied by other major powers. This could give the world a clearer sense of China’s military strength.

The Pakistani military claimed that the six Indian aircraft it shot down included three French-made Rafale jets, one Su-30, one MiG-29, and one Heron drone. The Rafales, first delivered by France to India in 2020, are among France’s most prominent defense exports. Both the Su-30 and MiG-29 are advanced Russian-made fighter jets widely used in export markets.

If Pakistan’s account is largely accurate, it suggests that India’s Russian and French aircraft were no match for Chinese air defense systems. This would mark one of the most convincing real-world performances of Chinese weapons on the global stage—and a breakthrough moment for China’s military industry.

On May 7, India launched a missile strike against Pakistan, targeting areas not only in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir but also reaching deeper than any previous cross-border action since 1971. India stated that it had no intention of escalating the conflict further, making a full-scale war between the two nuclear-armed nations unlikely.

The strike was initially aimed at responding to a deadly terrorist attack on tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir and was meant to appease a surge in nationalist sentiment within India. However, according to currently available reports, the operation failed to achieve India’s intended objectives and instead dealt a blow to its military credibility.

India’s lack of immediate response to Pakistan’s claims likely reflects strategic uncertainty—India is now caught between a rock and a hard place: letting the incident go now would cause more humiliation than refraining from striking in the first place, but launching another airstrike risks losing even more aircraft to Pakistan’s Chinese-supplied JF-17s and HQ-9 missiles, compounding the embarrassment.

The JF-17 fighter jet, which played a key role in Pakistan’s show of strength in this clash, currently numbers around 150 in the Pakistan Air Force fleet. Among them, the most advanced is the JF-17 Block 3, with approximately 24 units delivered. This model is equipped with modern avionics, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, and PL-15 missiles capable of beyond-visual-range engagement.

In addition, Pakistan recently commissioned the Chinese-made HQ-9P long-range air defense missile system. With a maximum range of 260 kilometers, a single HQ-9P battalion consists of eight quad-launch vehicles and can cover a defensive radius of roughly 125 kilometers.

Some analysts suggest that the HQ-9P, when integrated with the LY-80 medium-range air defense system, the ZDK-03 airborne early warning aircraft, and the JF-17 fighters—all sourced from China—forms a multi-layered “long-medium-short” air defense network. This structure may have given Pakistan a localized air defense advantage over India in the Kashmir region.

India’s national strength is far greater than Pakistan’s, but the Indian Air Force lags behind. Like Pakistan, its air defense systems rely on imports. India’s military equipment is a mix of various systems, with over half of it sourced from Russia. In recent years, India has purchased French “Rafale” jets and is now beginning to buy American-made equipment. The varying levels of interoperability and technological advancement of these systems lead to challenges in achieving unified operational integration and coordination, which affects their overall effectiveness in joint operations.

Pakistan had previously purchased American F-16s, but after the U.S. raised concerns about Pakistan’s alleged ties to “terrorism,” military cooperation with Pakistan was suspended, and Pakistan’s effort at military modernization thus became entirely reliant on China. The Chinese-made J-10 fighter jets and the export version of the JF-17 Thunder (JF-17) have become widely used in Pakistan, and batches of Chinese-made Hongqi (HQ-9) air defense missiles have been supplied. In the 2019 India-Pakistan conflict, there were reports of Pakistan using JF-17 Thunder aircraft to shoot down Indian jets, which greatly enhanced the reputation of Chinese military equipment.

This time, the number of Indian aircraft claimed to have been shot down by the Pakistani military was significant, and while India did not directly confirm Pakistan’s statement, Indian media effectively implicitly confirmed it, making the event cause a major stir internationally. If the details of this incident are further confirmed, it will provide a powerful and shocking real-world example that could reshape global perceptions of China’s military capabilities and overall strength. This battle marks a clear defeat for the U.S.-made medium-range air-to-air missiles and European-made Meteor long-range missiles when faced with China’s PL-15 missile, as their beyond-visual-range (BVR) strike capability falls short compared to China’s. It also highlights how U.S.-made and French-made radar systems pale in comparison to the radar system on the JF-17 Thunder B3, which, in contrast, performs like “nearsighted” compared to the latter. Russian aircraft, known for their speed and maneuverability, are now being outclassed in an era where “avionics and weapon systems” and “system integration” are key. While Russian and French manufacturers prioritize maneuverability, they cannot match the electronic warfare capabilities of the JF-17.

Modern air combat is primarily about beyond-visual-range engagements, with missiles being fired from tens or even hundreds of kilometers away. Aircraft can launch missiles at ground targets from over 100 kilometers, and surface-to-air missiles also have ranges exceeding 100 kilometers. This means that much of the action takes place beyond visual range, where electronic warfare often proves to be more crucial than the speed and climb rate of aircraft.

This India-Pakistan clash showcased China’s air defense capabilities. It’s widely known that the JF-17, while effective, is not the most advanced aircraft in China’s fleet. It lags behind the J-20 in terms of generation, and its overall combat capabilities are also somewhat distant from the J-10. Similarly, the HQ-9P is not the top-tier missile in its series. This battle seems to suggest the following points:

China’s military manufacturing has now surpassed both Russia and France. As there has been no direct confrontation between Chinese and American equipment, the current India-Pakistan battlefield-featuring American electronics in Indian aircraft-has thrust into the public eye a critical question: who holds the upper hand in a war between China and the US. In today’s electronic warfare, a U.S, victory is no longer a foregone conclusion; instead, it has become an open question.

If the information available thus far is accurate, we can safely deduce that since India  lost miserably in an air battle with Pakistan, it could barely count as a match for China. India’s military, relying on Russian and French aircraft, has been thoroughly humiliated by Chinese military technology. China’s weapons are almost entirely domestically produced, forming a massive, integrated system, while India’s aircraft are all imports, and at that, only of a certain level. India’s national pride will certainly take a significant hit as a result.

Taiwan should also be deeply concerned. They now know that the air force and electronic warfare capabilities of mainland China are world-class. Our military equipment advantage in the Taiwan Strait is simply unmatched. If the PLA were to engage, Taiwan’s military would be completely overwhelmed. The willingness and confidence of the U.S. to intervene militarily will increasingly become uncertain.

https://news.ifeng.com/c/8jAAMd2aFyG

 

☐ ☆ ✇ Global South

America Cannot Be Trusted: Prof. Marandi on Iran-U.S. Nuclear Talks

Par : amarynth — 28 avril 2025 à 01:23

Professor Mohammad Marandi joins TMJ News for an in-depth analysis on the current ongoing Iran–U.S. nuclear negotiations. As a former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiations team, he offers an insider look into Iran’s present position as a regional power and a nation that is refusing to bargain its national sovereignty at the negotiating table. He also sheds light on public opinion about the nuclear talks: do Iranians have hope for sanctions relief and do they trust the U.S. will stay committed to a deal?

☐ ☆ ✇ Global South

​Chinese Government’s Position on Opposing U.S. Abuse of Tariffs: Global Response

Par : amarynth — 6 avril 2025 à 17:00

https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/202504/t20250406_11589042.html

April 5, 2025

Recently, the United States has imposed tariffs on all its trading partners, including China, under various pretexts.

This severely infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of all countries, severely violates World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, severely undermines the rules-based multilateral trading system, and severely disrupts the global economic order.

The Chinese government strongly condemns and resolutely opposes such move.

By taking such action, the United States defies the fundamental laws of economics and market principles, disregards the balanced outcomes achieved through multilateral trade negotiations, ignores the fact that the U.S. has long benefited substantially from international trade, and weaponizes tariffs to exert maximum pressure for selfish interests.

This is a typical act of unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying. Under the guise of “reciprocity” and “fairness,” the United States is playing a zero-sum game to pursue in essence “America First” and “American exceptionalism.” It attempts to exploit tariffs to subvert the existing international economic and trade order, put U.S. interests above the common good of the international community, and advance U.S. hegemonic ambitions at the cost of the legitimate interests of all countries. Such action will inevitably face widespread opposition from the international community.

China is an ancient civilization and a land of propriety and righteousness. The Chinese people value sincerity and good faith. We do not provoke trouble, nor are we intimidated by it. Pressuring and threatening are not the right way in dealing with China. China has taken and will continue to take resolute measures to safeguard its sovereignty, security, and development interests. China-U.S. economic relations should be mutually beneficial and win-win in nature. The United States should go along with the shared aspiration of the peoples of the two countries and the world, and, minding the fundamental interests of the two countries, stop using tariffs as a weapon to suppress China economically and stop undermining the legitimate development rights of the Chinese people.

As the second largest economy and second largest market for consumer goods, China is committed to opening ever wider to the world, no matter how the international situation changes. We will continue to advance high-standard opening up. We will steadily expand institutional opening up in rules, regulations, management, and standards. We will implement high-standard policies for trade and investment liberalization and facilitation.

We will foster a first-class market-oriented, law-based, and internationalized business environment. And we will share our development opportunities with the world to achieve mutual benefits.

Economic globalization is the only way to human progress. The WTO-centered, rules-based multilateral trading system has been critical in promoting global trade, economic growth and sustainable development. Openness and cooperation are a historical trend.

The world will not, and should not, return to mutual isolation or fragmentation.

The whole world aspires for win-win cooperation. Economic bullying that shifts risks onto others will ultimately backfire. Making economic globalization more open, inclusive, balanced and beneficial to all is a shared responsibility of the international community.

Development is an inalienable right of all countries, not the exclusive privilege of a few.

International affairs should be addressed through consultation, and the future of the world should be decided by all countries. There are no winners in trade or tariff wars. Protectionism is a dead end. All countries should uphold the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefit. They should practice true multilateralism, jointly oppose all forms of unilateralism and protectionism, and defend the U.N.-centered international system and the WTO-centered multilateral trading system. We are confident that the vast majority of countries, committed to fairness and justice, will stand on the right side of history and act in their best interests.

The world must embrace fairness and reject hegemonism!

❌