Sino-Russian Joint Statement concerning the Deepening of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in the New Era

The following are my takeaways from the  current March 2023 “Sino-Russian Joint Statement concerning the Deepening of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in the New Era”.

Many topics had been touched upon before, in Beijing’s and Moscow’s “joint statement on international relations”, issued in Beijing in February 2022, but that statement had been issued shortly before Russia tried a full invasion of Ukraine.

According to the March 2023 statement, Sino-Russian relations are not similar to military and political alliances of the cold-war era, and not directed against third countries. Beijing and Moscow say they want to build “exemplary major-power relations” – viewing each others as “priority partners”, respecting each other all along, and treating each other as equals.

That’s basically the same model Xi Jinping tried to introduce into Chinese-American relations ten years ago, as described by Xinhua back then in June 2013, and further explained by Yang Jiechi, CPC Foreign Affairs Leading Small Group secretary at the time.

The March 2023 statement then highlights the usual emerging multi-polar world, one where “peace, development, cooperation and win-win are the unstoppable historic trend” (reads as if there had been no international cooperation before 2023), and an increasingly strong position of emerging markets and developing countries and where regional powers (地区大国, Russia? :)))  “resolutely defend their legitimate interests”.

^{Bragging in German, eating humble pie in Chinese: Sputnik/Rossya Segodnya propaganda celebrates first anniversary of full-scale Ukraine invasion as “dawn of a new world order (Febr 24, 2023) and covers Russia’s support for “China’s core interests” (March 22, 2023)}

Economic Cooperation

The two sides “adhere to the principle of mutual benefit” and intend to further deepen cooperation in the fields of modernisation.  A fair and predictable investment environment is to be created, and financial cooperation (with increased use of own currencies) and mutual supplies of agricultural products and food (互输农产品和粮食的多样性和供应量) are also on the agenda. There’s talk about diversity in those supplies, too, so it seems to avoid the question if this is meant to support food security in China, or if it is just meant to make Russian markets more diverse.
Increased use of own currencies isn’t a new topic. Xi Jinping raised the topic in a speech to a Gulf-Cooperation Council audience, too, in December last year, and Putin had advocated it as soon as in 2008. Cooperation on technology and innovation, such as AI, internet of things, 5G, low-carbon economy are also mentioned by the 2023 joint statement.

The remarks about iinvestment also refer to a Sino-Russian Investment Cooperation Planning Outline (中俄投资合作规划纲要), which is part of the 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship.  Supply chain stability and security, optimized trade structures and cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises of both sides are to be promoted.

It’s hard to tell from declarations like this one how far it will help Russia to develop its economy, but it does probably throw Moscow an economic lifeline. That, however, goes without saying even without this month’s joint statement. China doesn’t want Putin to go under.

Russian-Ukrainian war

Which leads us to the Russian-Ukrainian war.

The two sides express deep concern about comprehensive challenges for international security, express believe that there is a shared fate of all countries and peoples and that no country should achieve its own security at the costs of other countries’ security.
双方对国际安全面临的严峻挑战深表关切，认为各国人民命运与共，任何国家都不应以他国安全为代价实现自身安全。

It hadn’t read much differently in February 2022, a few weeks prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine:

The sides are gravely concerned about serious international security challenges and believe that the fates of all nations are interconnected. No State can or should ensure its own security separately from the security of the rest of the world and at the expense of the security of other States. The international community should actively engage in global governance to ensure universal, comprehensive, indivisible and lasting security.

Less obviously related to the Ukraine war, maybe, but from the 2023 statement, one year on:

The two sides emphasize the significance of the “Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races” and reaffirm that “a nuclear war cannot be won or won”.
双方强调《五个核武器国家领导人关于防止核战争与避免军备竞赛的联合声明》的重要意义，重申“核战争打不赢也打不得”。

How reliable this assurance will be, remains to be seen. Russia has toyed with nuclear threats during the past year, and continues to do so.

Multipolar World

In the broadly  and vaguely defined field of “terrorism”, the 2023 statement is more detailed than in that of 2022, demanding “objective, fair and professional” investigation of Nord Stream attack (应对“北溪”管线爆炸事件进行客观、公正、专业的调查) and agreeing to strengthening law enforcement cooperation concerning the “three evils”, including color revolutions, East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), transnational organized crime, economic crimes, and drugs trade. Listing ETIM, popular uprisings and organized crime in one go is certainly an intentional step to make the Sino-Russian public (and unknown swathes of international public opinion) get used to this kind of world view.

As for the world beyond bilateral relations, the multipolar one with the unstoppable historic trends of peace, development, cooperation and win-win, Beijing and Moscow emphasize “the democratization of international relations“, every country’s “right to choose its own path of development (with the likely exceptions of Taiwan and Ukraine, if it is up to China and Russia), and a continued implementation of the Agreement on Economic and Trade Cooperation between the People’s Republic of China and the Eurasian Economic Union signed on May 17, 2018.^*)

Taiwan

As mentioned before, “democratization of international relations” isn’t for everyone in the Sino-Russian statements  – not for Ukraine or Taiwan.

Russia reiterates its scrupulous respect of the one-China principle, acknowledges that Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory, opposes any form of “Taiwan independence”, firmly supports China’s actions to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
(俄方重申恪守一个中国原则，承认台湾是中国领土不可分割的一部分，反对任何形式的“台独”，坚定支持中方维护本国主权和领土完整的举措。)

Indeed, both issues. Ukraine and Taiwan, are closely related. Both China and Russia intend to annex foreign territory (Russia has already done so, although not to the extent  it would like to, and China, if it wants to attack Taiwan, will have to depend on its Russian hinterland. However, Moscow’s compliance with Beijing’s “one-China” charade is no particular hint into that direction, as it is being played along with by many other countries too, although in varying degrees. All the same, China’s planned aggression of its own, against Taiwan, is one of the reasons why it needs to cultivate relations with Moscow as closely as it does.

Military concerns

China and Russia (apparently) see U.S. in breach of Biological Weapons Convention, and call for institutionalized effective inspection mechanisms. Demands for  were quite likely included at Russia’s particular request. The Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory of March 2022 – a year ago – may remain a scarecrow in the Moscow muppet show, and probably works well on parts of the global public. The March 2023 statement deplores a U.S. “cold-war mentality” and the “negative influence” of the Indo-Pacific Strategy” on regional peace and stability in that region.

As far as Beijing and Moscow are concerned, NATO isn’t welcome in the Indo-Pacific either. The statement says that NATO should remain a regional (i. e. European) and defensive alliance. The statement also expresses concern about NATO “undermining” Asia-Pacific “peace & stability”.

Generally speaking, China seems to get more out of the strategic partnershp and the “major-power relationship” than Russia. That becomes obvious, because apart from the EAEU bits, most concerns are rather about China’s than about Russia’s. There are, however, demands that there should be no unilateral sanctions without approval of the United Nations Security Council (not an issue in the 2022), and a note that

the two sides oppose politization of international cultural cooperation, and discrimination against people in the fields of culture, education, science, and sports, based on nationality, language, religion, political or other beliefs, or national or social origin.
双方反对国际人文合作政治化，反对以国籍、语言、宗教、政治或其他信仰、民族或社会出身为由歧视文化、教育、科学、体育界人士。

This may be read as a hint to the “Olympic Committee”, among others.

Covid Pandemic

I’ve left that out here. Both Sino-Russian statements, Febr 2022 and March 2023, are full of it, with the usual complaints and demands, but the world is moving on.

________________

Note

*)

There needs to be a mention of the institution that are supposed to help bring about the multipolar world, according to Beijing and Moscow. That would be – according both to this month’s and the 2022 statements – the WTO (including remarks that can be read as a Chinese reaction to “discrimination” against it concerning the chip industry), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, G20, and APEC. Accession of the African Union was added to the G20 issue this time, but hadn’t been a year ago.

________________

Related / Updates

「主要重点是经济方面和高科技领域」, sputnik.cn, Mar 26, 2023
________________

Headlines 2017 (1) – Five Economic Policies

Having addressed one of next year’s headlines, these are some rough notes on China’s economic policies, i. e. this years headlines.

china.org.cn, a website operating “under the auspices of the State Council Information Office” and the China International Publishing Group, tells the world (in English) that

[t]he Chinese economy will focus on quality, a shift from the rapid growth the country has been known for over the past decades since the reform and opening up policy was introduced.

Referring to the Central Economic Work Conference’s summary, the article is mostly about parading the new normal personality cult (“Xi’s economic thought takes shape”), suggesting that

China will develop into a manufacturing powerhouse, with a shift from “Made in China” to “Created in China,” the statement said, as the country is striving to evolve from a world factory that churns out low-end products.

A Chinese-language article, published by Xinhua newsagency in Chinese one day earlier (on Wednesday, when the conference closed), is much more detailed, putting the meeting of officials and economists into the context of the CCP’s 19th national congress, and the current 13th Five-Year plan, with recurrent references to the five policies (五大政策).

In the Journal of Nanjing University’s (南京大学学报) third quarterly in summer this year, economics professor Hu Angang (and a doctoral assistant) suggested that the five policies (literally: five big policies) had afforded China the global number-one position as a high-tech industrial country, having overtaken America in 2015. The state’s visible hand had made this possible, Hu argued, adding that given that the market’s “invisible hand” wasn’t as well developed in China as it was in the US, only a sensible combination of both those hands had put China in its new position. Issues such as ways to define the scopes and goals of competition, as well as performance assessments, were also addressed both by Hu’s paper, and by the central economic work conference.

Hu suggests that there were frequent imbalances in classical economic policies, not least America’s (emphasizing innovation sometimes, or emphasizing job creation at others), while China had struck a balance between an industrial policy (产业政策 政策, the policy China started with 30 years ago), a competition policy (竞争政策), an innovation policy (创新政策), a policy of opening up (开放政策), and a “green” environment-protection policy (绿色政策).

One can’t say that the divide between advocates of a set of “balanced” policies are running right through the Pacific (i. e. between Beijing and Washington). America, too, has its share of advocates for balanced industrial policies. An example for an extremely unbalanced concept: the idea that “America should innovate” while China would manufacture was suggested in 2011, by  New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who said that he owed this division-of-labor concept to former Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee-hwa. (Besides innovation, Tung also had the “green policy” on his mind. What Friedman had in mind, God knows.)

Either way, Ralph E. Gomory, an applied mathematician, pointed out that Friedman’s and Tung’s math didn’t add up:

[w]e need successful industries and we need to innovate within them to keep them thriving. However, when your trading partner is thinking about GDP rather than profit, and has adopted mercantilist tactics, subsidizing industries, and mispricing its currency, while loaning you the money to buy the underpriced goods, this may simply not be possible.

That was six and a half years ago. And obviously, China’s leadership never intended to leave innovation to America for good.

However, Hu Angang’s paper concedes that so far, while being the world’s “number one high tech manufacturing country” (为世界最大高技术产业国), China’s ability to innovate independently from foreign know-how still remains “relatively low”.

Dalai Lama and Barack Obama meeting in New Delhi

Heads of state and government (apparently) can’t always afford to be polite – not if this CS Monitor report of nearly eight years ago is something to go by. In February 2010, the Dalai Lama, as he left the White House after a meeting with then president Barack Obama, was reportedly “awaited” by “a mound of trash”. A White House spokesman contested the interpretation – see same CS Monitor page.

But there were other downgradings, too, at the time. Obama met Tibet’s spiritual leader in the “map room” of the White House, not in the Oval Office. An ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) reporter interpreted this – most probably accurately – as a concession to China, which had demanded that the meeting not even go ahead.

Aller, Nov 2017

But a wise man who works to better the lot of the People won’t fear the height of a mountain or the width of a river on his way to gain worldly credit.

It will be left to reason here if Donald Trump is too high a mountain, or if meeting him, just like having met all US presidents from George H. W. Bush to Barack Obama while they were in office, wouldn’t benefit Tibet anyway.

There has been another meeting between the Dalai Lama and Barack Obama last Friday, and when you are travelling on behalf of your foundation that carries your name, meetings with the man Beijing loves to hate appear to make sense. The setting in New Delhi appears to have been nicer, too, than in the White House, in 2010.

The meeting apparently hasn’t generated a splash in the Chinese media. Overseas Chinese Website Duowei News, a news website operated from New York (and blocked in China, according to Wikipedia) points out that just before, Obama had completed a China visit, including a Meeting with Xi Jinping at Diaoyutai Guest House. Xinhua newsagency reported on Thursday that Xi and Obama held talks on November 29.

Duowei also adds some statistics, saying that this was the sixth meeting between the Dalai Lama and Obama, and that the most recent one had taken place at the White House, in July 2016, when Obama was still in office. (According to VoA, that was in June 2016.)

During an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) during a visit to Ottawa, the president of Tibet’s exile government in Dharamsala, Lobsang Sangay, advocated the Dalai Lama’s “Middle Way” policy.

Pyongyang: Otto Warmbier “a Victim of Obama’s ‘Strategic Patience’ Policy”

Until yesterday (June 22), North Korean newsagency KCNA carried only one article concerning Otto Warmbier, dated June 15: “U.S. Citizen Released”. A short statement said that

U.S. citizen Otto Frederick Warmbier, who has been in hard labor, was sent back home on June 13, 2017, on humanitarian grounds according to the adjucation made on the same day by the Central Court of the DPRK.

Today, KCNA published a lengthy article, titled DPRK FM Spokesman Accuses U.S. of Slandering Humanitarian Measure. KCNA provides no permalinks. The article was published in English and Chinese, and probably in the other regular KCNA languages, too. The English and Chinese versions aren’t completely identical. Both complain about American misrepresentations of the Warmbier case, the English version referring to that as a “smear campaign”, the Chinese one calling American news coverage “black propaganda”.

The tenor of both of KCNA versions – more at length in English than in Chinese on that aspect – is that Washington hadn’t taken all possible measures that could have helped to free Warmbier, and maintained an uncompromising position instead.

Pyongyang, June 23 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry Friday released the following statement over the fact the U.S. administration authorities are heating up the anti-DPRK smear campaign by abusing the humanitarian measure taken by the DPRK as an inhuman act, concerning the death of Warmbier, an American citizen:		朝中社平壤６月２３日电　朝鲜外务省发言人２３日发表谈话，对美国政府当局借美国人瓦姆比尔死亡事件把朝鲜的人道主义措施说成非人道主义，热衷于反朝黑色宣传予以谴责。谈话内容如下：
Warmbier is clearly a criminal sentenced to reform through labor in accordance with the DPRK law on March 16, 2016 for the hostile act he committed against the DPRK on an assignment from an anti-DPRK plot-breeding organization of the U.S.		瓦姆比尔是分明因受美国反朝阴谋团体的任务，从事反朝敌对活动，于２０１６年３月１６日被朝鲜依法判刑的罪犯。
As was made public to the world, during the press conference on February 29, 2016, Warmbier confessed in tears that he had committed hostile act against the DPRK, with connivance of the U.S. administration, after he received an assignment from the Z-Society of the Virginia University of the U.S. controlled by the Friendship United Methodist Church, an anti-DPRK plot-breeding organization of the U.S., and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).		众所周知，瓦姆比尔２０１６年２月２９日在记者会上流着泪招认，他接受美国反朝阴谋团体“友爱联合监理教会”和中央情报局操控的弗吉尼亚大学Ｚ协会交给的任务，并在美国政府默认下从事了反朝敌对活动。
CNN and other U.S. media outlets are still broadcasting the video of Warmbier admitting his crime and apologizing for it at the press conference in Pyongyang.		美国有线电视新闻网等美国媒体迄今还在放映瓦姆比尔在平壤举行的记者会上认罪和谢罪的视频。
The DPRK-U.S. relations are in the most hostile and belligerent state, and the U.S. is making every frantic effort to disparage the prestige of the dignified DPRK and stifle it while imposing heinous sanctions and pressure unprecedented in history.
Although we had no reason at all to show mercy to such a criminal of the enemy state, we provided him with medical treatments and care with all sincerity on humanitarian basis until his return to the U.S., considering that his health got worse.		朝鲜没有任何理由对这样一个敌对国家的罪犯大发善心，但考虑他的健康状态不佳，出于人道主义立场提供精心治疗，直到他返回美国为止。
As for the groundless public opinion now circulating in the U.S. that he died of torture and beating during his reform through labor, the American doctors who came to the DPRK for repatriation of Warmbier will have something to say about it.		至于美国国内流传瓦姆比尔死因是他在服刑中受到酷刑和殴打的毫无根据的舆论，曾因他的释放事宜访朝的美国医生倒是应该有话要说。
They examined Warmbier and exchanged medical observations about him with our doctors. They recognized that his health indicators like pulse, temperature, respiration and the examination result of the heart and lung were all normal and that we provided him with medical treatment and brought him back alive whose heart was nearly stopped.		他们检查瓦姆比尔的身体后，与朝方医生交换了医学见解，并对他的脉搏、体温、呼吸、心肺检查结果等生命指标均为正常以及朝鲜治愈几乎停止心脏跳动的瓦姆比尔予以承认。
Now the former officials of the Obama administration publicize as their “achievement” the release of 10 American citizens granted by the humanitarian measures we had taken. They cannot but acknowledge the fact that we treat the detainees in accordance with international laws and standard.		奥巴马前政府时期的美国官员现将朝鲜采取人道主义措施释放１０名美国公民粉饰为自己的“成绩”，他们应该不会否认朝鲜按照国际法和国际标准对待囚犯。
The fact that Warmbier died suddenly in less than a week just after his return to the U.S. in his normal state of health indicators is a mystery to us as well.		瓦姆比尔在生命指标正常的情况下返回美国不到一周就突然死亡，对朝鲜也是个不解之谜。
It reminds us of an incident that Hunziker, an American citizen who had illegally crossed the border and entered the DPRK on August 24, 1996, died in less than a month after he returned home in perfect health accompanied by Bill Richardson, the then U.S. Congressman, on November 27 the same year thanks to our humanitarian measure.
At that time, the U.S had totally ignored and not even mentioned a word about his death. The point here is he was also an American citizen, was he not?
Warmbier is a victim of policy of “strategic patience” of Obama who was engrossed in utmost hostility and negation against the DPRK and refused to have dialogue with the DPRK.		奥巴马被对朝鲜的极度敌对感和反感所俘虏，拒绝同朝鲜举行对话，瓦姆比尔是其“战略忍耐”政策的牺牲者。
Why the U.S. government which claims to care about the welfare of its citizens had not even once made an official request for the release of Warmbier on humanitarian basis during the Obama administration? The answer should be given by the U.S. itself.		试问，如此关心美国公民安全的美国政府为何在奥巴马执政时期从未向朝鲜正式提出瓦姆比尔的人道主义释放问题？答案应由美国自己找。
Although Warmbier was a criminal who committed hostile act against the DPRK, we accepted the repeated requests of the present U.S. administration and, in consideration of his bad health, sent him back home on humanitarian grounds according to the adjudication made on June 13, 2017 by the Central Court of the DPRK.		虽然瓦姆比尔是犯下反朝敌对行为的罪犯，但朝鲜接受美国现政府的反复请求并考虑他健康不好，根据２０１７年６月１３日中央法院裁定，出于人道主义立场送瓦姆比尔回国。
However, the U.S. totally distorted this truth and dared to clamor about “retaliation” and “pressure” on the dignified DPRK while deliberately kicking up the smearing campaign against the DPRK. This is a frontal challenge and political plot against us.		全面歪曲这样的事实，成心对朝鲜血口喷人，悍然渲染对神圣的朝鲜“报复”和“施压”，简直是对朝鲜的正面挑战和政治阴谋活动。
To make it clear, we are the biggest victim of this incident and there would be no more foolish judgment than to think we do not know how to calculate gains and losses.		需要明确的是，此次事件的最大受害者是朝鲜。如果以为朝鲜连得失都不会计算，那可是再愚蠢不过的判断。
The smear campaign against DPRK staged in the U.S. compels us to make firm determination that humanitarianism and benevolence for the enemy are a taboo and we should further sharpen the blade of law.		美国上演的反朝黑色宣传攻势令朝鲜坚定这样的决心：对敌人的人道主义和宽容绝对要不得，应更加磨砺好法律的利剑
The U.S. should ponder over the consequences to be entailed from its reckless and rash act. -0-		美国应对其轻举妄动可能招致的后果深思熟虑。（完）

A discussion about (tourist) travels to North Korea can be found on Foarp’s blog. Please comment there.

Huanqiu Shibao: Imagine (Mother of all Bombs, Father of all Bombs)

Main Link: Can “Mother of all Bombs” frighten Pyongyang?, Huanqiu Shibao, April 14. Links within blockquotes added during translation.

American military stationed in Afghanistan threw a large airbomb, referred to as “mother of all bombs”, in the country’s eastern mountaineous regions in the evening of Thursday local time. Said bomb’s weight was 9.8 tons, with a capacity amounting to 11 tons of TNT, and it is the largest non-nuclear bomb used by America in combat so far.

驻阿富汗美军当地时间星期四晚上在这个国家的东部山区投掷了一枚有“炸弹之母”之称的大型空爆炸弹，该炸弹重9.8吨，爆炸当量相当于11吨TNT，它是迄今美国在战斗中使用的最大威力非核爆炸装置。

The White House and the US military stationed in Afghanistan said that the use of this precision-controlled blockbuster had been directed at “Islamic State’s” fighting groups’ tunnel and cave systems and eliminated said facilities, and maintained the momentum of American troups striking at “Islamic State”. President Donald Trump said in a brief comment that this had been another successful action carried out by the US military. He also mentioned North Korea, saying that [the issue of] the “mother of all bombs” being a signal to Pyongyang or not wasn’t important.

白宫及驻阿富汗美军表示，使用这种精确制导的巨型炸弹旨在摧毁“伊斯兰国”武装分子的隧道和洞穴系统，该炸弹是清除上述设施同时保持美军打击“伊斯兰国”势头的合适武器。特朗普总统发表简短评论说，这是美军又一次成功的袭击行动。他还提到了朝鲜，表示“炸弹之母”是不是向平壤发出一个信号，这不重要。

Trump hasn’t been president for three months yet, but the US military has launched at least two attacks that drew global attention. One was the bombing of the Syrian air force base, and the other was the “mother of all bombs” in Afghanistan. Trump is clearly more spontaneous in using US military might than previous US president Obama, and displays some indulgence and pride in American military power.

特朗普担任总统还不到3个月，美国军队发动的攻击至少已经两次受到全球瞩目，一次是轰炸叙利亚空军基地，一次就是在阿富汗使用“炸弹之母”。特朗普对使用美国军力比前任总统奥巴马显然更加随意，他表现出对美国军事力量的某种迷恋和骄傲。

Even the younger president Bush, who conducted two wars, went through detailed procedures prior to war, and the wars were part of an extensive range of expectations. In contrast, both the bombing of a Syrian airbase and throwing the “mother of all bombs” in Afghanistan came very suddenly. If use of armed force continues at the current frequency and pace, president Trump may be “in constant war”, becoming remembered as the “warring president”.

即使打了两场战争的小布什总统，每一次开战之前都经过了繁琐程序，而且当时的开战处于广泛的预期之中。然而无论攻击叙空军基地还是往阿富汗山区扔“炸弹之母”，来的都很突然。如果按照这样的频率和速度使用武力，那么特朗普总统就要“不停打仗”了，他说不定最终会作为一名“战争总统”被历史记住。

The “mother of all bombs” is a very cruel kind of weapon, consuming a large amount of oxygen in the process, within the range of its explosion. As its destructive force is very large, its so-called “precision control” only applies in a locational sense. In fact, its probability to harm innocent is comparatively high. In the current fields of anti-terrorism operations, with military and civilians being located next to each other, the US military incessantly kills and wounds ordinary people. By using the “mother of all bombs”, Washington doesn’t appear to have taken the issue of innocent fatalities very seriously.

“炸弹之母”是一种非常残忍的武器，它能在爆炸过程中消耗周围的大量氧气，由于破坏力极大，它的所谓“精确制导”只是投放地点意义上的，实际上伤及无辜的概率更高。如今与反恐有关的战区，大多是军民相间的，美军不断在伊拉克、阿富汗等地炸死炸伤平民，现在又把“炸弹之母”投入使用，看来华盛顿并没真把伤及无辜当回事。

Obviously, the purpose of this bombing has been about testing the effect of this weapon. At the same time, it has added a new antic to US military deterrence. Presumably, similarly mountainous North Korea felt the shock waves from far-away Afghanistan. If the US military could, by throwing this bomb [in Afghanistan], get the Pyongyang regime under control, that wouldn’t be a bad thing. However, its likely effect will be contrary.

这次投弹显然有试验该武器实战效果的目的，同时也是给美国的军事威慑增添一个新噱头。想必同样多山的朝鲜感受到了这场遥远阿富汗大爆炸传过来的冲击波。如果美军扔了这个炸弹，就真能把平壤政权给镇住，那倒也不错。然而它所产生的效果很可能是相反的。

Pyongyang’s main line of thought these years has been that if you have no nuclear weapons, the future of their regime will resemble Saddam Hussein’s and Gaddafi’s. The “mother of all bombs” may once again irritate and mislead Pyongyang, about how important it would be to increase the explosive capacity they themselves can master.

平壤这些年来只有一个思维，那就是如果没有核武器，萨达姆和卡扎菲政权的下场就是平壤政权未来的样子。“炸弹之母”可能再次刺激并误导平壤：提高自己所能掌握的爆炸当量是多么重要。

Various analysts believe that Pyongyang has done all the preparation for a sixth nuclear test, and that its top leader Kim Jong-un will now make his final deliberations: to set it off, or not. The latest bit of information conveyed to Pyongyang by the US military won’t contribute to rational choices by Pyongyang.

多方分析认为，朝鲜已经做好举行第六次核试验的各种准备，其最高领导人金正恩可能正在做最后的权衡：引爆还是不引爆。美国军方传递的最新信息对平壤做出理性抉择没有好处。

Reportedly, there is still a non-nuclear bomb that exceeds the “mother of all bombs”. That is the Russian high-efficiency vacuum bomb, called “father of all bombs”. Imagine what would happen if Russia used it to strike at the “Islamic State” in Syria, and how America and the West would condemn Moscow.

据报道，世界上还有比“炸弹之母”爆炸当量更大的非核炸弹，它就是被称为“炸弹之父”的俄罗斯高效率真空炸弹。设想一下，如果是俄罗斯在打击叙利亚“伊斯兰国”组织时扔一颗“炸弹之父”，那么美国和西方舆论会不会往死里骂莫斯科。

America appears to have the privilege to do whatever it wants to do, but this, very probably, means all kinds of danger, rather than more security.

美国像是有想怎么做就怎么做的特权，然而这对世界来说很可能意味着某种危险，而不是更多的安全。

____________

Related

Defending the decision, CNN, April 14, 2017
“MOAB killed dozens”, NY Times, April 14, 2017
Warning to North Korea, KBS Seoul, April 14, 2017
____________

Chinese Reaction to US Congress vote on Military Exchanges with Taiwan

Main Link: People’s Daily

Answer by Chinese defense ministry spokesman Yang Yujun (杨宇军) to a question from the press on Friday.

Q: The American Senate and House of Representatives have passed the “2017 fiscal year’s defense authorization act”, containing, for the first time, the promotion of high-level exchanges etc. between the US and Taiwan. How does the Chinese defense ministry comment on this?

记者问：美国参众两院日前通过“2017财年国防授权法”，首次写入推动美台高层军事交流等内容。中国国防部对此作何评论？

A: American Congress has voted to pass the “2017 fiscal year’s defense authorization act” with no regard for the overall situation of Sino-US relations, containing the clause of American-Taiwanese high-level exchanges etc., affecting China negatively. The Chinese defense minstry expresses firm opposition to this.

国防部新闻发言人杨宇军答：美国国会不顾中美关系大局，表决通过含有美台军事交流等涉华消极条款的“2017财年国防授权法”。中国国防部对此表示坚决反对。

The Taiwan issue concerns China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and involves China’s core interests. China firmly opposes official contacts and military links in any form, it opposes American arms sales to Taiwan. This position has been consistent and clear. American Congress [..] putting the wheel of history into reverse, [..] promoting US-Taiwanese military exchanges, this approach interferes with China’s internal affairs, damages stability in the Taiwan Strait, harms China’s sovereignty and security interests, and will ultimately harm America’s own interests, too.

Note: [..] replaces my (absent) translation of 强 – I’m not sure if it stands for qiang, which can man as many things as “violently” or “strongly”, or for jiang, which would stand for “stubbornly”, or for something else.

Update: see Chang’s comment

台湾问题事关中国主权和领土完整，涉及中国核心利益。中方坚决反对美台进行任何形式的官方往来和军事联系，反对美国对台军售，这一立场是一贯的、明确的。美国国会强开历史倒车，强推美台军事交流，这种做法干涉中国内政，破坏台海稳定，损害中国的主权和安全利益，最终也必将损害美国自身的利益。

As early as in 1999, American Congress passed the “2000 fiscal year’s defense authorization act”, limiting development of exchanges between Chinese and American military in twelve fields, artificially creating legal obstacles for relations between the Chinese and the American military.  Today, the American Congress passes another bill which agitates for developing high-level US-Taiwanese exchanges between high military and civilian officials. This kind of approach reflects the stubborn cold-war line of thought and zero-sum concepts. We urge America to see the situation clearly, to take immediate effective measures to correct the mistake, so as to avoid progressive damaging of relations between the two countries’ military.

早在1999年，美国国会就通过了“2000财年国防授权法”，限制中美两军在12个领域开展交流，人为制造中美两军关系的法律障碍。今天，又是美国国会通过鼓吹美台开展高级军官和文职官员交流的法案。这种做法体现了美国国会一些人顽固的冷战思维和零和观念。我们敦促美方认清形势，立即采取有效措施改正错误，以免进一步损害中美两国两军关系。

What needs to be emphasized is that the plans and schemes of “Taiwan independence” elements that draw support from foreign forces to destroy national sovereignty and territorial integrity are not going to have their way. They will only induce our military to contain “Taiwan independence”, and will only strengthen the resolute determination, confidence and ability to advance the course of national unity.

需要强调的是，“台独”分子借助外国势力破坏国家主权和领土完整的图谋不会得逞，只能促使我军遏制 “台独”、推进国家统一进程的意志更坚、信心更足、能力更强。

We reserve ourselves the right to take progressive measures.

我们保留采取进一步措施的权利。

____________

Related

Assistant Secretary or above, CNA, Dec 9, 2016

____________

Is the Truth losing in Today’s World? (And if Yes: How so?)

That’s what Richard Stengel, currently undersecretary for public diplomacy at the State Department, believes, according to a Washington Post article:

“We like to think that truth has to battle itself out in the marketplace of ideas. Well, it may be losing in that marketplace today,” Stengel warned in an interview. “Simply having fact-based messaging is not sufficient to win the information war.”

And, adds the author of the WaPo article, David Ignatius:

How do we protect the essential resource of democracy — the truth — from the toxin of lies that surrounds it? It’s like a virus or food poisoning. It needs to be controlled. But how?

Fascinating stuff – fascinating, because it feels like a déjà vu to me (and I’m wondering for how many others who have a memory of some decades).

The Genius leads the spectators: engineering of consent in its early stages.

When I studied and worked in a fairly rural place in China, I had a number of encounters with – probably mainstream – Chinese worldviews. That was around the turn of the century, and these were probably the most antagonistic, and exciting, debates I ever had, as the only foreigner among some Chinese friends. Discussions sometimes ended with the two, three or four of us angrily staring at each other, switching to a less controversial topic, and bidding each other a frosty good-bye.

But there was a mutual interest in other peoples’ weird ideas. That’s why our discussions continued for a number of weekends. At at least one point, I felt that I had argued with overwhelming logic, but my Chinese interlocutor was unimpressed. I blamed Chinese propaganda for his insusceptibility, but apparently, propaganda was exactly his point: “If propaganda helps to keep my country safe, I have nothing against propaganda,” he replied.

I found that gross. The idea that propaganda should just be another tool, something you might volunteer to use and to believe in, so as to keep your country and society stable, was more alien to me than any Chinese custom I had gotten to know.

The idea that truth is, or that facts are, the essential resource of a (working, successful) democracy looks correct to me. Democracy can’t work without an informed public. But when it comes to German mainstream media, I have come to the conclusion that they aren’t trustworthy.

I agree with the WaPo article / Richard Stengel that the US government can’t be a verifier of last resort. No government can play this kind of role. The Chinese party and state have usurped that role, but China is known to be a low-trust society – that doesn’t suggest that they have played a successful role as official verifiers. While many Chinese people do apparently think of their government as the ultimate guardian of national sovereignty and individual safety from imperialist encroachment, they don’t seem to trust these domestic public security powers as their immediate neighbors.

And the ability of any Western government to be a verifier ends as soon as an issue involves state interests, government interests, or governing parties’ interests.

The US government as a verifier of last resort concerning the Syria war? That idea isn’t even funny.

The German government as a verifier of last resort when it comes to foreign-trade issues (within the European Union, or beyond)? Bullshit.

But what about the American media? I don’t have a very clear picture of how they work, but it would seem to me that US television stations usually address the issues that earn them most of the public’s attention. If that is so, it should be no wonder that Donald Trump profited more from media attention, than Hillary Clinton.

But if tweets, rather than platforms, become the really big issues, the media must have abandoned the role that has traditionally been ascribed to them.

German (frequently public-law) media are strongly influenced by political parties, and apparently by business-driven foundations, too.

I don’t know if something similar can be said about American media, but even if only for their attention-seeking coverage, they can’t count as well-performing media either.

What about “social” media? According to Stengel, as quoted by the Washington Post, they give everyone the opportunity to construct their own narrative of reality.

Stengel mentions Islamic State (in 2014) and Russian propaganda campaigns as examples. In the latter’s case, he points to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations during the elections in particular.

I believe that Stengel / Ignatius may have half a point. Russia – provided that they were indeed behind the leaks – only targeted Clinton’s campaign, not Donald Trump’s.

But then, wouldn’t it have been the task of the US media to unearth either campaign’s dirty secrets? Russian propaganda performed, even if only selectively, where US media had failed. It exposed practice in the Democratic Party leadership that was hostile to democracy, but acting under the guise of defending it.

How should citizens who want a fact-based world combat this assault on truth, Ignatius finally asks, and quotes Stengel once again, and addressing the role of “social media”:

The best hope may be the global companies that have created the social-media platforms. “They see this information war as an existential threat,” says Stengel. The tech companies have made a start: He says Twitter has removed more than 400,000 accounts, and YouTube daily deletes extremist videos.

Now, I’m no advocate of free broadcasts for ISIS videos. But if the best hope is the removal of accounts and videos by the commercial providers, it would seem that there isn’t much hope in human power of judgment, after all – and in that case, there wouldn’t be much hope for democracy as a model of government.

Ignatius:

The real challenge for global tech giants is to restore the currency of truth. Perhaps “machine learning” can identify falsehoods and expose every argument that uses them. Perhaps someday, a human-machine process will create what Stengel describes as a “global ombudsman for information.”

Wtf? Human-machine processes? Has the “Global Times” hacked the WaPo?

____________

Related

Why Wikileaks can’t work, Dec 1, 2010

____________

People’s Daily: “Little NATO” drawing nearer as Japan and South Korea initial Intelligence Sharing

South Korean parliamentary opposition leader Woo Sang-ho of the main oppositional Minjoo Party said on Monday that they would impeach or dismiss the defense minister if the government went ahead with plans to sign a General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA).

Chinese Communist Party organ People’s Daily wrote on Wednesday or Thursday that if signed, this would be the first military cooperation agreement between the two countries after World War 2, and criticized the tw0 governments’ moves indirectly, by quoting a military expert.

→Link

On November 14, South Korea’s and Japan’s initialled a “Military Intelligence Protection Agreement”. If officially signed, this would be the first military cooperation agreement after the second world war. Military expert Zhang Junshe said in an interview with People’s Daily online that if the agreement in question was signed, the two countries would bypass America and exchange intelligence directly. This was significant good news for Japan and America, but for South Korea, this was like drinking Zhen poison to quench its thirst, or to allow the wolf into the house. The agreement could damage peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, and negatively affect peace and stability in the entire North-East Asian region.

14日，韩国和日本政府草签了《军事情报保护协定》。如该协定正式签署，这将是两国自第二次世界大战结束后签署的首份军事合作协定。军事专家张军社在接受人民网采访时表示，若该协定正式签署，日韩两国将绕过美国直接共享情报，这对日美两国是重大利好消息，但对韩国而言则如同饮鸩止渴、引狼入室。该协定可能破坏朝鲜半岛的和平稳定，对整个东北亚地区的和平稳定也会带来不利影响。

According to a report by South Korea’s “JoongAng Ilbo” on November 15, South Korea hopes to use Japan’s reonnaissance satellites, radar, and other advanced equipment to gather intelligence, while Japan could make use of intelligence gathered by traditional Korean manpower.

据韩国《中央日报》15日报道，韩国希望利用日本的侦察卫星和雷达等尖端装备获取情报；而对日本来说，则可利用韩国传统人工收集的情报。

Currently, there are separate “Military Intelligence Protection Agreements” between South Korea and the US and Japan and the US respectively, but the exchange of military intelligence between South Korea and Japan needs to go through America as a “connecting airport”, with no “direct flight”.

目前，韩美、日美之间分别缔结有《军事情报保护协定》，不过韩日两国交换军事情报需要通过美国这个“中转站”，双方之间并无“直航”。

Zhang Junshe pointed out that Japan had advanced military technology at its disposal and could rely on advanced reconaissance satellites, radar, and other first-class equipment to gather information concerning North Korea’s nuclear tests, missile launches etc., while South Korea, owing to its geographical advantage, could gather first-hand intelligence gathered by agents and spies. If Japan and South Korea signed the “Military Intelligence Protection Agreement”, the two sides could bypass America and exchange intelligence directly.

张军社指出，日本具有先进的军事科技，可凭借其先进的侦察卫星和雷达等尖端装备获得朝鲜核试验和导弹发射等情报信息，而韩国凭借地理优势，可获得更多由特工、间谍人员等获得的第一手人工情报。日本和韩国一旦签署《军事情报保护协定》，双方将可以绕过美国直接交换军事情报。

Some media reports point out that military cooperation between South Korea and Japan was a sensitive issue, because of the history of Japanese colonial rule over South Korea from 1910 to 1945 on the one hand, and also because of territorial disputes between the two sides. With historical and territorial issues unresolved, the South Korean government has always faced continuous resistance. On June 29, 2012, the South Korean government even brought a signing to an “emergency halt”, right on the scheduled day of signing.

有媒体报道指出，军事合作在韩日两国合作中属敏感范畴，一方面缘于日本1910年至1945年在朝鲜半岛推行殖民统治的历史，另一方面缘于双方现在的领土争议。在历史和领土问题均未解决的情况下，韩国政府推动签署军事情报方面协定一直面临重重阻力。2012年6月29日，韩国政府甚至在原定协定签署日当天“紧急叫停”。

This time, South Korea and Japan have signed the “Military Intelligence Protection Agreement” at tremendous speed, and South Korea said that it had only taken about a dozen days to conduct and intitial the agreement. Reportedly, the two sides will also work hard to sign the agreement by the end of November, after completing domestic procedures.

此次日韩两国“火速”草签《军事情报保护协定》，从韩方宣布重启有关协定谈判到协定草签仅用了十几天。据称，双方还将力争在完成国内手续后，于11月底前正式签署协定。

How could a agreement that had been stalled for years be settled in a dozen days? The background factors are providing food for thought.

一个多年无法的协定如今为何在短短十几天便得以尘埃落定？背后缘由耐人寻味。

According to Zhang Junshe, Japan has, after the end of World War 2, never profoundly reflected on the crimes it committed to the countries of North-East Asia. While America and Japan had made efforts all along to facilitate the signing of the “Military Intelligence Protection Agreement”, the opposing domestic voices in South Korea had always been very strong. The South Korean masses fear Japanese militarism’s rise from the ashes, so as to trample over the Korean peninsula once again. There are various reasons for Japan and South Korea to rush the initialling of the “Military Intelligence Protection Agreement”. From South Korea’s perspective, with president Park Geun-hye’s “Choigate” scandal almost inescapable for the government, the country is facing a serious domestic crisis. By signing military cooperation with Japan, domestic sight can be shifted and passed on to the crisis, thus easing the pressure on Park Geun-hye’s government because of “Choigate”. Also, as South Korea’s agreement to the American deoployment of the “THAAD” anti-missile system had led to a deepening of contradictions with China, Russia, and other neighboring countries, South Korea’s choice to deepen previous cooperation with Japan can also, to a certain degree, ease pressure from neighboring countries. In addition, America is very positive about facilitating the Japanese-South Korean signing of the “Military Intelligence Protection Agreement”. America has always hoped to strengthen military cooperation between its two Asia-Pacific allies, but for historical reasons, Japan and South Korea have, for a long time, given an appearance of unity while being divided in fact. If Japan and South Korea officially sign the “Military Intelligence Protection Agreement” at last, this undoubtedly spells an important result for America’s “Rebalance to Asia and the Pacific”, conducive to pulling Japan and South Korea together for the formation of a “small NATO” concept.

据张军社介绍，二战结束以来，日本从未对其在二战期间对东北亚各国所犯下的罪行作出深刻反省。虽然美、日方面一直在努力促成日韩签订《军事情报保护协定》，而韩国国内的反对声音一直十分强烈。韩国民众唯恐日本军国主义死灰复燃，再次践踏朝鲜半岛。此次日韩“火速”草签《军事情报保护协定》，原因是多方面的。从韩国方面看，目前朴槿惠政府深陷“闺蜜门”事件难以自拔，韩国内部面临着严重的政治危机。韩国此时与日本签署军事合作，可以转移国内视线，转嫁危机，减轻“闺蜜门”事件给朴槿惠政府带来的压力。此外，由于韩国同意美国在韩部署“萨德”反导系统，导致韩国与中国、俄罗斯等邻国矛盾加深，所以韩国选择加强与日本之前的合作，某种程度上也能减轻周边国家对其造成的压力。另外，美国对促成日韩签署《军事情报保护协定》非常积极。美国一直希望它的两个亚太盟友加强军事合作，但日韩两国因为历史问题长期貌合神离。若日韩最终正式签署《军事情报保护协定》，无疑是美国“亚太再平衡”战略的重要成果，有利于实现美国拉日韩两国构建东北亚“小北约”的构想。

Ma Yao, special researcher with the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Shanghai International Studies University, told media that for a long time, the main obstacle for building trilateral US-Japanese-South Korean military cooperation had been in South Korea, and the progress in South-Korean-Japanese military cooperation meant that the obstacle for trilateral military cooperation was reduced and might never return. This was a “watershed” in South-Korean-Japanese cooperation in the military field.

上海外国语大学国际关系与公共事务学院特约研究员马尧在接受媒体采访时表示，长期以来，美国构建美日韩三边军事合作的主要障碍在韩国，而韩日军事合作方面的进展意味着三边军事合作的障碍或将不复存在，这是“韩日在军事领域合作的分水岭”。

For Japan and America, it would clearly be significant good news if Japan and South Korea signed the “Military Intelligence Protection Agreement”.

日韩若签署《军事情报保护协定》，对日本和美国而言，显然都是重大利好消息。

Zhang Junshe pointed out that under the guise of the North Korea crisis, Japan could take advantage of the situation and get involved in the affairs of the Korean peninsula, broaden its right to discourse, thus increasing its influence in Northeast Asian affairs. For America, closer military cooperation between Japan and South Korea is conducive to advancing its control of the two allied countries further, to serve its “Rebalance to Asia and the Pacific” strategy, to achieve its goal of controlling North East Asia, and to advance and achieve the protection of its regional hegemony.

张军社指出，日本未来可以以朝鲜危机为幌子，趁机介入朝鲜半岛事务，扩大其在朝鲜半岛事务中的话语权，进而提升其在东北亚局势中的影响力。对美国而言，日韩两国更紧密的军事合作有利于其进一步控制这两个盟国，为其“亚太再平衡”战略服务，实现其控制东亚的目标，进而实现维护其地区霸权的目的。

The next paragraph translation is a stub (or whatever). It apparently refers to undoing the limits put on Japan’s military power after WW2, and the Shinzo Abe government’s goal to “normalize” Japan’s military policies.

You can contribute to a translation.

In March 2016, Japan’s new military legislation was officially implemented, allowing Japan to go from ordinary times to “有事”时, from its own ground to freely using force abroad.

2016年3月，日本新安保法正式实施，使日本获得了从平时到“有事”时、从本土到周边再到全球自由对外使用武力的权限，从而使日本绕过和平宪法束缚，初步实现长期追求的“军事正常化”目标。

If Japan and South Korea sign the “Military Intelligence Protection Agreement”, this will open a channel for Japan to get involved in matters of the Korean peninsula. For South Korea, this undoubtedly means  drinking Zhen poison as a thirst quencher and allowing the wolf into the house, turning South Korea into the biggest victim. Zhang Junshe says that South Korea’s government, in order to shift the pressure from “Choigate” and to respond to America’s call, to resist China’s and Russia’s resistance against the “THAAD” deployment in South Korea, and to involve Japan, presents itself, on the surface, as retaliation against North Korea, it actually helps America to form a military alliance system in the Asia-Pacific region, and provides the conditions for Japan to step into the Korean peninsula.

若日韩签订《军事情报保护协定》，“则为日本介入朝鲜半岛事务打开了一个通道，这对韩国而言无异于饮鸩止渴、引狼入室，韩国将成为最大的受害者。”张军社如是说，韩国政府为了转移“闺蜜门”事件的压力，同时响应美国的号召，抵抗中国和俄罗斯对“萨德”入韩的反对，将日本拉拢过来，表面看是为了对付朝鲜，实际上是在帮助美国在亚太构建军事同盟体系，为日本插足朝鲜半岛提供条件。

Zhang Junshe also said that the main goal of the Japanese-South Korean “Military Intelligence Protection Agreement” was to strengthen shared intelligence about North Korea, and that this kind of military alliance directed against third countries was an expression of cold-war mentality that would cause fierce reactions from North Korea. It could damage peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and negatively affect peace and stability in the entire North East Asian region. As North Korea’s closest neighbor, China could therefore also face more security threats.

张军社还说，日韩《军事情报保护协定》主要目的就是要加强有关朝鲜情报的共享，这种针对第三国的军事同盟是冷战思维的表现，必然引起朝鲜方面的激烈反应，可能破坏朝鲜半岛的和平稳定，对整个东北亚地区的和平稳定也会带来不利影响。中国作为朝鲜半岛的近邻，也可能因此面临更多安全威胁。

South Korean Arriang News TV reported on Friday that the agreement could become effective without parliamentary approval in South Korea (where the government lost its majority in April this year). However, 59 percent of the public disapproved of the agreement.