China's new no nonsense diplomacy

 The meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, marked the turning point in Chinese Diplomacy, from a non retaliatory and non reactive policy to one of mutual respect and reciprocal in nature. For decades since China return to the world stage as a super power, China continued to adopt a conciliatory and accommodating policy of not hitting back when attacked or wronged by hostile and aggressive countries. The USA and many western countries, including silly Asean countries did not appreciate the non aggressive Chinese policy and took it as a sign of weakness. Instead of accepting China's appeasement as a friendly gesture and reciprocate with lowering the temperature, they continue to attack and demonise China on a daily basis, even with hostile and aggressive acts.

The meeting in Alaska was the last straw on the camel's back. China went there hoping to start a new relatonship with the Americans under a new Biden regime, but prepared for the worse. And the Americans chose to show their animosity, to want to continue to bully China by their hostile interference with China's domestic affairs. China had to react with plan B, ie tit for tat, aggression for aggression. China was blunt and firm in hitting back at the Americans and not giving an inch to the Americans. The Americans had been bragging about being firm with the Chinese, after flirting with the Quad members and thinking they could put China under pressure, sanction Chinese officials on eve of the meeting as a show of force. 

The Chinese hit back forcefully and stating in no uncertain terms, enough is enough. China would henceforth hit back at anything the Americans throw at them and at anyone that think they could take potshots at China. The EU's sanction on China the next day was returned with bigger sanctions against the EU members. China meant business and would treat everyone with equal respect and equal animosity, come what may.

China's Wolf Warrior Diplomacy is now in full view to the world. Deal with China as an equal and with mutual respect. Any country having wild ideas thinking they can still irritate China and wanting to pick a fight with China must be prepared to have their ass kicked by China. China has now given the Brits a big ass kick as well.  This silly little has been country is still dreaming in high noon that China could be bullied.

China getting more assertive and aggressive? Wait till you see the real assertive and aggressive China in the days to come. You want respect from China you have to treat China with equal respect. You want to trade and do business with China, you are welcome. But not when you think you can muck around with China and doing silly things behind China's back, attacking China with white lies.

The world would now have to live with a more assertive and aggressive China or a more respectful China if treated with respect and sincerity. The evil and aggressive Americans and the West will have to rethink how they are going to be treated by, yes, a more aggressive and confident China. Period.

China today is self sufficient in almost everything, in science and technology.  China can manufacture anything it needs. China has no reason to trade with hostile countries that regard China as enemy. China would decouple with the US if necessary and cut off trade with smaller countries if it needed.

Here comes aggressive China and the world has got to adjust and live with it, like it or not. Has China made its position clear? Have the enemies of China understood the new China?

Covid19 - Singapore under foreign pressure to choose vaccines?

SINGAPORE — The delivery of the Chinese-made Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine to Singapore prior to an assessment by the authorities for its use here was based on a bilateral commercial contract, and did not involve any "coercion" or "influence by other bodies", said a top health official on Wednesday (24 March).

The Ministry of Health (MOH) director of medical services Kenneth Mak was responding to media queries on whether Singapore was unable to turn down the delivery of Sinovac's CoronaVac because it wanted to avoid upsetting the Chinese government.  Yahoo News

The above Yahoo news implied that Singapore was under pressure for taking delivery of Chinese vaccines. And the Singapore govt had to explain that it was not. Why didn't they asked, was Singapore under pressure by foreign govts not to use Chinese vaccines and not to approve Sinovac or to deliberately delay its approval and use? 

Or why didn't these reporters be asking if Singapore was pressured to use western vaccines, to quickly approve the use of these western vaccines that were only approved for emergency use after a warp speed bypass without going through the proper procedures. And to make matter more serious, these are untested vaccines, using these vaccines would put the people into uncharted territories that would take years to confirm its safety or otherwise.

Of course the manufacturers would say it is very safe, that the mRNA would be destroyed by the antibodies triggered. Is that so? The main purpose of the mRNA is to induce the body to produce more mRNAs to trigger the body immune system to produce anti bodies to fight it. Two possibilities can happen. If too much mRNAs are produced. Two, not enough antibodies are produced to kill all the mRNAs. Any mRNAs not killed or destroyed would stay in the body to produce more mRNAs.  That is its job. What would happen to the recipients if this happened? 

The body will continue to produce mRNAs nonstop and at the same time to produce antibodies nonstop in an unending process, causing extreme stress to the body system. What then?

And the possibility of mutation of DNAs cannot be ruled out. This could be the beginning of human civilisation injecting voluntarily, DNA bending material into the human body, planting the seed of mutation that no one can predict the consequences.

Is any country pressuring Singapore to use mRNA vaccines on its people instead of Sinovac vaccine that is based on dead Covid19 virus? It is looking more like Singapore is being pressured by some countries not to use Sinovac vaccine?

The question posed to the Task Force was politically loaded to imply that the Task Force was compromised in their choice of Sinovac and the poor buggers furiously trying to explain away the allegation.  They forgot to ask the reporter what was his agenda or motive to frame such a question. The answer is obvious. The question was a warning to Singapore not to use Sinovac vaccine or it would be seen and reported that Singapore was pressured to do so.  Would Singapore acquiesce to this demand and reject the Sinovac vaccine so as not to offend the party making the demand?

Now which country/countries are politicising the use and distribution of vaccines? Many European countries were under political pressure not to use the Chinese or Russian vaccines even when available while the western vaccines were not available to them.  This political game of life and death is highly irresponsible and reckless as innocent lives could be lost because of it.

Singapore must not be caught by this irresponsible western political game on the use of vaccines.

What do you think? What is the agenda?

China assertive or American bullying more assertive

 

Tommy 'Koh said bilateral ties between both superpowers have evolved from one between "a rich, powerful country and a poor, weak country" to one between "two approximate equals".

And while they are not yet equal, both economically and militarily, China would "naturally be more assertive" and more reluctant to be subordinate to the U.S., the veteran diplomat added.

He continued to explain that the U.S. has a long list of complaints against China over several issues, including trade relations, accusations of technology theft, human rights in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the South China Sea.

China, on the other hand, dismisses these criticisms as an attempt to deter their rise even further....' 

 

Above article quoting Tommy Koh appeared in themothership.com. Many Asian leaders kept parroting this American catchphrase that China is assertive or becoming more assertive while implying that the Americans are such nice guys, not assertive, not aggressive, so peace loving.

Why is China standing up and doing a tit for tat against the Americans? The Americans have been attacking China daily, interfering in China's domestic affairs and demonishing China, and how come no one would say the Americans were the assertive one, the aggressive one, the one that is bullying China and China is justified to hit back, a reaction rather than being assertive? Why is it acceptable for the Americans to attack China daily, started a trade war and still being passed off as a nice and peaceful country, not assertive, not aggressive when it is agitating and provoking for war, forming military gangs to threaten and to want to start a war with China? Why are there so many blind cronies around?

Why no one is saying the Americans are assertive, aggressive, the bully, the international gangsters, sending warships into the South China Sea to threaten and taunt China? These are not aggressive, not assertive, because it is the right thing to do, the right of the Americans to threaten and taunt China and other countries like N Korea and Iran or Venezuela?

The Americans are not assertive, not aggressive? Why is China to be blamed for standing up to the American bullying and this be called assertive? Why should these people be telling China not to hit back when slapped by the Americans, that it is better to turn the other cheek, then it would be very nice, China not hitting back, not assertive, be bullied like before for the last 200 years? It is for the good of China to remain docile, be the timid little boy to be pushed around by the big bully, and no one else would be hurt as long as the bully has someone to bully.

Should China listen to these silly people and be very nice to the Americans and apologise to the Americans for hitting back when attacked by the Americans? Who bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing 5 Chinese Embassy staff? Did anyone dare to condemn the Americans for this sneaky attack or say the Americans were aggressive rogues? China must not be angry and accept it quietly because the attackers were the very nice Americans and the attack was normal, to be expected? To react means becoming assertive? Psst, China, the best place to attack the Americans is the de facto American Embassy in Taipei. Then claim to have used an outdated old map, but be prepared to be called aggressive by all the silly Asian leaders. They kept quiet when the Americans did it, but would be the first to come out and condemn China if China do it. Only Americans are allowed to do such dastard and heinous things and would not be condemned.

Many silly Asean leaders simply repeat what the Americans said, China is assertive, even aggressive, without bothering to think a little and identify who is the real assertive, aggressive one and the big bully. Just because the Americans said so, they just repeat what their master said.

Look at what just concluded in Alaska, the Americans continued to bash China and meddled with China's domestic affairs as if it is the Imperial overlord. And many silly little countries also like to poke China in the eyes, parroting the narratives of the Americans.  Who are doing the attacks, who are doing all the sanctions? Not assertive, not aggressive, very friendly towards China? What do they expect China to do, bend its head and say nothing, or turn the other cheek to be slapped?

China is just reacting to the aggressive and abusive Americans and the West, and silly American cronies trying to smear and demonise China. It is right for China to kick asses and make them know that it is silly to try to be little mischievous rats or a big bully.  In Alaska, China had made it known to the world that it no longer tolerates meddling with its internal affairs and would hit back immediately.

Immediately after Alaska, many broke and bankrupt little countries in Europe also joined the sanction game against China.  China would be taking them to task, one at a time to make sure they never recover from their slide to bankruptcy and poverty. China would no longer lend a helping hand to ingrates and enemies of China.

A new chapter of Chinese history has just begun. The world would now see a new China and the meaning of assertive and aggressiveness. China will kick asses. You have been warned. Any more silly little American cronies still wanting to mess around with China under the instruction of their American master?

 

Beijing warns Five Eyes that an ‘irritated’ China would be ‘difficult to handle’ ‘You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry’

Beijing warns Five Eyes that an ‘irritated’ China would be ‘difficult to handle’ ‘You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry’

The Chinese foreign ministry has called on the nations of the Five Eyes alliance to enter the 21st century and stop viewing Beijing as the Qing Dynasty, after the allied countries successively accused China of human rights abuses.

Speaking at a regular news conference on Wednesday, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying warned the nations of the Five Eyes alliance (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US) to stop interfering in China’s internal affairs.

Hua said the Five Eyes nations needed to move into the 21st century and realize the China of today is very different to the Qing Dynasty. She said the five-nation grouping is reminiscent of the Eight-Nations alliance (Germany, Japan, Russia, Britain, France, the United States, Italy and Austria-Hungary) which invaded and plundered northern China in 1900.

Questioning the legitimacy of these nations to call out China for alleged human rights abuses, the spokeswoman stated “the United Nations has more than 190 member states. Several allies such as the “Five Eyes Alliance” cannot represent the international community.” She added that there was “scant” support for their criticism of China.

On Tuesday, Australia and New Zealand, in a joint statement, welcomed the decision of the US, EU, Canada and Britain to impose sanctions on senior Chinese officials.

“Just look at the world map and you will know that China has friends all over the world," she said.

"The China now is not the China of 120 years ago. The era when a few cannons can open the door to China is gone! The Chinese people are not irritable, but if they are irritated, they will be difficult to handle,” she added 

 Anonymous

March 24, 2021 7:47 pm

 

Where does the US obtain the power to lecture China about what it should do over Xinjiang governance?

Where does the US obtain the power to lecture China about what it should do over Xinjiang governance?

The EU, US, UK and Canada on Monday banded together to announce sanctions on Chinese officials over alleged human rights violations in Northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, a concerted move directed at China by the West. It is an attempt to force China to accept interference from outsiders. This was a crude assertion of their dominance in world affairs.

The US and its main allies are defining human rights and democracy in terms of a set of values that can be used as leverage to consolidate Western hegemony with the US as its center. They know that it will impact the governance of big developing countries like China and Russia and bring chaos to these countries, but they insisted in doing so as a way of playing strategic games.

This is unacceptable. The essence of this "struggle" for human rights is a struggle between hegemony and anti-hegemony. It is a struggle between pursuing the development of human rights and playing with human rights for geopolitical purposes, between respecting the sovereignty of all countries with no interference in each other's internal affairs or a few countries dominating the majority.

Double standards in recent times have been running rampant. Who is responsible for the development of human rights and democracy in each country? Should it be the country's sovereign government or external countries and forces? Under international law, all sovereign countries are equal regardless of size. This is the basis of the international law and the UN Charter. Should a few countries out of the 193 members of the UN have the right to make policies for the majority of countries?

The US strictly prohibits the infiltration of other countries into its own affairs, including its election, but the US and its allies have infringed upon the political affairs of quite a number of countries, destabilized these countries, and led to many tragedies. If all the countries believe they have the right to lecture others and rally support for such aggression, does the world still have order?

Should China raise a serious demand that guns should be banned throughout the US after the recent shootings in Atlanta and Colorado? If Washington thinks China has no right to do so, where does the US obtain the power to lecture China about what it should do over Xinjiang governance?

There is no basis for China, Russia and many other developing countries to discuss human rights issues with the West, because what the West really cares about is not human rights, but the right to define human rights one-sidedly. This is an expression of hegemony in which only the Western countries can set the rules for the world.

China and Russia will never allow the West to be this rude and insolent, nor will they succumb to the ambitions of the West.

Anonymous

March 24, 2021 10:51 am