Editor's Note:

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Chief Executive, John Lee Ka-chiu (Lee), led a high-level delegation of 70 people to participate in the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation held in Beijing from October 18 to 19. At the forum, he invited entrepreneurs to Hong Kong to set up belt and road offices. After the forum, he sat down with the Global Times (GT) reporters Xie Wenting and Bai Yunyi for an exclusive interview, sharing his insights on Hong Kong's role in the BRI and Hong Kong's strengths on the global stage. Lee also touched on the "competitive role" of the Hong Kong-Singapore relationship, noting that as long as the "pie" of development is made big enough, everyone can also get a larger share.

GT: You led a high-level delegation of 70 people to Beijing on your latest visit to attend the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, including several high-ranking government officials as well as individuals from the business, academic, and scientific communities. What was the consideration behind this? What is Hong Kong's role in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)?

Lee: I hope to use this platform of the forum to better promote Hong Kong and seek business opportunities. Many of our delegates have also established personal connections with entrepreneurs from various regions, giving them the opportunity to personally introduce Hong Kong's advantages and services, which will be more persuasive.

Hong Kong is a participant, promoter, and beneficiary of the BRI. In the joint construction of the BRI, Hong Kong has its own unique advantages. We boast the position of "eight centers," namely, an international financial center, an international trade center, an international shipping center, and an Asia-Pacific international legal and dispute resolution service center, as well as four emerging centers: An international innovation and technology center, a Chinese and foreign cultural and art exchange center, an international aviation hub, and a regional intellectual property trading center. I believe that Hong Kong can play its role in promoting financial connectivity, attracting international investment, and promoting the internationalization of the Chinese currency renminbi (RMB).

GT: We noticed that not long ago you visited three Southeast Asian countries: Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. How do you evaluate the prospects for cooperation between Hong Kong and Southeast Asian countries under the framework of the BRI? Which are the areas that hold the greatest potential? In the past, people have often said that Hong Kong is a "bridge" between the East and the West. In the future, do you think Hong Kong will play a similar role between the Chinese mainland and Southeast Asia?

Lee: Hong Kong has a unique status granted by the central government and the One Country, Two Systems policy is implemented in the city. As one of the few cities in the world that can concentrate both China's advantages and international advantages, we are very lucky, and should therefore make good use of this advantage.

First, Hong Kong can help enterprises in the Chinese mainland go global, including in terms of financing, introducing talents, and scientific and technological cooperation. We can give full play to Hong Kong's functions as an international city. This is the "capital" we have accumulated over the years.

Second, Hong Kong attaches great importance to regional cooperation and hopes to have good relations with our neighbors. The ASEAN is Hong Kong's second-largest trading partner, after the Chinese mainland. This is why one of my two official trips this year was to the three ASEAN members, and I will also take time to visit other states.

In addition, the ASEAN is also an important force in helping Hong Kong join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) as soon as possible. I am very happy that when communicating with ASEAN states this time, many of them expressed their support for Hong Kong's joining of the RCEP. In the future, we will continue to promote regional cooperation with the ASEAN.

GT: Many people view Singapore as Hong Kong's "competitor" and believe that Singapore has the potential to replace Hong Kong as Asia's international financial center. What's your opinion on this view? Will Hong Kong be replaced by Singapore? Are Hong Kong and Singapore in competition, or do they have more room for complementarity and cooperation?

Lee: Hong Kong and many places have dual competitive and cooperative relationship. Competition is a good thing. Only with competition can we make progress. Healthy competition is beneficial. In fact, I have a very good relationship with Singapore's leadership. We often discuss how there is a lot of room for cooperation and development.

I think the most important thing (for a city) is to compete with itself. Competing with competitors is important, but it is likely that one day you will have surpassed your competitors. Will you not have goals then? So, every day we have to be the object of our own competition, to surpass what we accomplished the day before, and apply this philosophy to the future as an effective long-term goal.

Therefore, I often tell my colleagues that Hong Kong needs to compete and cooperate with other regions, taking advantage of their strengths and compensating for their weaknesses. This is beneficial for our own development. Cooperation between Hong Kong and all countries and regions is aimed at mutual benefit and win-win outcomes. 

Relationships that only benefit one side are not sustainable. Maybe this time you gain more and I gain less, but next time I gain more and you gain less, and that's good.

In the end, what is the most important goal of competition? Is it the development of the economy or improving the lives of the people? As long as the "pie" of development is made big enough, everyone can also get a larger share. This is our ultimate goal.

GT: Some international media outlets have claimed that Hong Kong's international status and international attractiveness have declined in recent years. How do you respond to this claim?

Lee: Hong Kong is attractive in many aspects. In world rankings, Hong Kong holds many top positions: Our investment environment is ranked first globally, our offshore RMB trading volume is the highest in the world, and we are also the world's longest-living city. Hong Kong's public transportation system is ranked first among over 60 advanced cities, and we are the only city with an area of only 1,100 square kilometers that has five "Top 100" universities. Hong Kong also ranks second in many indicators worldwide: economic freedom, government efficiency, and innovation environment are all ranked second globally. Hong Kong has many aspects that other regions in the world envy.

The epidemic in the last few years has indeed slowed down Hong Kong's development in some areas. Some places in the world relaxed epidemic control measures relatively early, and therefore have a time advantage, but I think this advantage (relative to Hong Kong) is only temporary. Since resuming customs clearance, Hong Kong has fully integrated with the world. We are also "catching up with time" in different fields. Now, the work of the HKSAR government is all results-oriented, and many citizens also believe that many things are progressing faster this year than before. I think these are all positive factors for Hong Kong (in terms of international attractiveness).

GT: This year alone, you have visited many places in the Chinese mainland, from Beijing to Guangzhou, Shenzhen to Hainan, and Chongqing to Guizhou, among others… As the head of HKSAR, why do you visit the mainland so frequently? During these trips, what made a particularly profound impact on you?

Lee: I visited different places (in the mainland) to gain understanding. In fact, the main reason was I felt it imperative to do. Hong Kong's biggest opportunity lies in the country's development. It is most beneficial to Hong Kong to fully and proactively integrate into the overall development of the country.

At the end of 2022, I established the Steering Group on Integration into National Development to strengthen the integration of the entire HKSAR government and the entire society into the overall national development. This means that we need to develop close relations with different provinces and cities to work together for mutual benefit and win-win results. I attach great importance to this aspect and will continue to establish cooperative relationships (between them and Hong Kong) in different places.

Hong Kong now has different cooperation mechanisms and systems with many provinces and cities. I also often share my ideas with the leaders of various places in the mainland, that is, our cooperation must be "one plus one equals two." Hong Kong will put its best foot forward and so will our partners. This is "invincible."

GT: Not long ago, you expressed your confidence that the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area will develop into one of the most dynamic and competitive regions in China and even the world. What makes you so confident about the prospects of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area? The idea of the Greater Bay Area has been proposed for many years. Do you think the construction of the Greater Bay Area will usher in some big breakthroughs in the next year or two?

Lee: I believe that the Greater Bay Area is one of the most promising regions for development in the country. Currently, Hong Kong and Shenzhen have already achieved a high level of integration, and have formed strong cooperation ties with the entire Guangdong Province. With nine cities and two special administrative regions, each with its own advantages, it is no longer just a case of "one plus on," but rather the synergy of all 11 entities working together, resulting in significant collaborative efficiency.

Hong Kong has a lot to contribute to the Greater Bay Area and the country. First, there is a wealth of talent in Hong Kong. The city is able to attract international talents, with its highly internationalized universities that are among the top in the world. 

Additionally, there are scholarships and exchange programs available, such as the "Belt and Road Scholarship," further enhancing the internationalization of Hong Kong's talent pool. Hong Kong's professionals in fields such as accounting and engineering are also highly aligned with international standards.

Second, Hong Kong has a strong advantage in scientific research. In the current complex global (geopolitical) environment, many researchers who had previously left Hong Kong or the Chinese mainland are now looking to return and conduct research in Hong Kong.

Third, Hong Kong implements the common law system, which is similar to the legal systems of many developed countries. As a result, these countries are more familiar with and trust Hong Kong's legal system. This can attract more international partners for cooperation and also make Hong Kong a preferred arbitration venue for international trade disputes.

The entire Greater Bay Area has a population of 86 million and its GDP is equivalent to the 10th largest economy in the world. It is larger than many countries, so the Greater Bay Area can compete strongly with other countries as a whole. 

I feel very happy and proud that Hong Kong has the opportunity to contribute to the development of the Greater Bay Area, and Hong Kong will also benefit greatly from it, injecting strong momentum into its own economic development.

Data for all major economies for the second quarter of 2023 is now published, making possible a systematic comparison of China's economic performance to all other major countries. This reveals two key facts. First, since the beginning of the pandemic, China has outperformed every other major economy - in most cases by huge margins. Second, the US has launched a flat-out propaganda campaign in an attempt to conceal this fact.

Therefore, two key questions need answering. First, what are the factual trends in the world economy? Second, why has the US decided to launch a systematic campaign of falsification? 

China's growth compared to other major economies

Starting with the facts, covering the period of the pandemic and its aftermath, in the last four years, up to the latest available data for the second quarter of 2023, China's economy grew by a total of 19.2 percent. Among the major advanced economies, the G7, US growth was 7.5 percent, and Canada's was 4.7 percent. Italy's growth was 1.5 percent, France's 1.3 percent, Japan's 0.8 percent, Germany's 0.5 percent and the UK's 0.3 percent. 

China's economy grew more than two and a half times as fast as the US', four times as fast as Canada's, 13 times as fast as Italy's, 15 times as fast as France's, 24 times as fast as Japan's, 38 times as fast as Germany's and 64 times as fast as the UK's economy. 

In short, China outgrew all the major advanced economies by enormous margins.

To complete the picture, as striking as the above data is, it significantly understates China's outperformance of other economies in productivity growth and living standards. To analyze these, it is necessary to consider per capita growth, ie, including population changes.

China's annual average population increase since 2019 has been only 0.1 percent, meaning it received no boost to total GDP growth from population changes. In contrast, major G7 and BRICS economies have had large population increases - from domestic increases, immigration, or both. Since 2019, Canada's annual average population increase was 1.2 percent, India's 0.8 percent, and the US' 0.5 percent.

China's outperformance of other major economies is therefore even greater as measured by per capita GDP growth. To take even the most rapidly growing other economies, China's 4.4 percent annual per capita GDP increase compares to 2.5 percent in India and 1.3 percent in the US. India's per capita GDP growth was only 56 percent of China's and China's per capita GDP grew more than three times as fast as that of the US.

Per capita data therefore demonstrates even more strongly China's great outperformance of any other major economy - not only in terms of total growth but also in productivity and ability to increase its citizens' wellbeing.

As the facts show China outperforms every other major economy, not by small amounts but by huge margins, any objective discussion of the international economic situation would discuss questions such as "Why is China's economy growing so much faster than all the other major economies?" 

However, for the US to admit the facts of the global economy is impossible. This would be to acknowledge that it is being vastly outperformed by another economy, even worse demonstrating the superiority of socialism to capitalism. Therefore, the US has launched a systematic campaign denying reality and facts.

At the top of the US political pyramid, lack of contact with reality has now reached a bizarre level. President Biden, for example, recently claimed that China's economic growth is "around 2 percent" when it was 5.5 percent in the first half of this year. He stated that in China "the number of people who are of retirement age is larger than the number of people of working age," which is completely false. This figure which he has claimed to be true is off by hundreds of millions. He claimed that China's economy is a "ticking time bomb" - when it is the US, not China which this year suffered two of the three biggest bank collapses in its history.

The US campaign of economic 'fake news'

Alongside declarations by political figures, US media such as the New York Times, are running articles with titles such as "How do we Manage China's Decline?" - in a situation where China's economy is growing two and a half times as fast as the US and China's per capita GDP is growing three times as fast as the US!

The method of totally ignoring facts and reality is classically known as the "big lie" - the "big lie" being an accurate description of the methods used by Goebbels, even though he did not invent the phrase. This calculates that if a lie is repeatedly stated by powerful media or state apparatuses then, despite the fact it is a lie, large numbers of people may come to believe it is true simply due to the number of times it is repeated and the number of media outlets in which it appears.

What are the aims of the US in spreading these lies? Some are obvious - to try to discourage foreign companies from investing in China and try to spread demoralizing rumors. But there is another more profound and dangerous purpose.

Facts make clear China's economy is far outperforming the US. At the 20th CPC National Congress, the goal was set as reaching the level of a "medium-developed country by 2035." In 2020's discussion around the 14th Five Year Plan, it was concluded that by 2035 for China: "It is completely possible to double the total or per capita income."

In contrast, the long-term average annual US growth is only two percent. These relative growth rates mean that by 2035 China's economy would increase in size by 100 percent and the US by only 35 percent. As the US sees international relations as a zero-sum game, in which its goal is to retain its dominance, such relative growth rates are regarded as a disaster. The US sees it as crucial to slow down China and prevent it from achieving its 2035 goals.

The data already given makes clear how this could be achieved. The much slower growth of the economies of the West compared to China means that if China could be moved to a Western capitalist model, with a far higher percentage of consumption in GDP, then China's economy would grow no faster than any other Western economy. As increases in consumption and living standards are extremely closely related to economic growth, if China's economy could be slowed in that way, then China's living standards would also be lower than its targets.

But for the US to openly present an argument that "China should slow to the growth rate of a Western economy" is impossible - no one would take such a damaging proposal seriously. So, instead, the US must attempt to conceal the real situation - to make the fraudulent claim China is growing more slowly than Western economies. If that lie could be believed, then an argument could be presented that China should move toward a Western model - so that its economy could supposedly grow more rapidly. To give credibility to that claim, however, the lie must first be believed that the Western economies are outgrowing China. That is why false information must be spread.

Consequently, the reality that China is far outperforming the Western economies, while entirely true must not lead to complacency. The US is attempting to damage China via the international campaign of falsifications already outlined. The slow growth of Western economies itself creates problems for China - a negative international economic situation means China must rely entirely on increasing domestic demand to achieve its 2035 goals. To this latter well-known issue, the present author would add some others. In particular close attention must be paid to increasing profits - which are no higher than five years ago.

But to accurately address these real issues in China's economic development, first the facts must be established - that China's economy is far outgrowing all the others.

The 18th G20 Leaders' Summit will be held this weekend in New Delhi, India. This is the first time India will hold such a large-scale multilateral diplomatic summit. Judging from the preparations, it seems that New Delhi highly values this event, hoping that its status as a "great power" can be enhanced by hosting the G20 summit successfully. But the US and the West, which often claim they "stand with India," have made great efforts to hype the "differences" between the participating countries of the G20 summit. They want to promote their own agenda to a major world platform for economic cooperation. Some analysts say that this year's G20 summit in New Delhi may face more noise and a more complex situation than ever, speculating that a joint communiqué may not be issued for the first time in its history.

India has announced six priorities for the G20 summit: green development and climate finance, inclusive growth, digital economy, public infrastructure, technology transformation, and reforms for women empowerment for socio-economic progress. As for the issue that the West is paying the most attention to - the Russia-Ukraine conflict - many media outlets noted that India did not invite the Ukrainian leader to attend this summit.

From this series of arrangements, it is not difficult to see that the Indian side wants to focus the discussion on economic recovery and multilateral diplomacy, which has been the main theme of the G20 platform all along. New Delhi has repeatedly said that the forum is not a place for geopolitical competition. For instance, on the India-China conflict, which the US and the West have been hyping up, Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said, "I would not at all see it the way you would suggest," when recently asked about this topic by some media.

However, this is not the outcome that the US and the West want. They have shown a tendency of wanting to tear the G20 apart since last year's summit in Bali, Indonesia. This year, they have intensified their efforts to castrate the G20. A report in The New York Times Chinese edition asked an inflammatory question, "Does the world still need the G20?"

Apart from dividing the Global North and South as well as inciting confrontation between West and East, US and Western public opinion has shown at least two major new characteristics for the upcoming G20 summit. First, they are keeping an eye on the BRICS mechanism after its expansion and hyping up its "conflicts" with the G20 platform. Second, they try to provoke China-India conflicts by using India's presidency to hype the competition between the dragon and the elephant.

According to messages released by US media, US President Joe Biden is ready to propose a program providing an alternative to China to developing countries at the G20 summit, and the US and Western countries will force the G20 to condemn Russia by threatening to refuse to issue a joint statement. The US and the West want to woo India hard in order to confront China. However, this behavior doesn't seem supportive of India, but rather stirs up trouble for the country. Now, the US and the West have shown a gloating attitude over some geopolitical divergences, including those between China and India. They want to see deeper division and even fights. Such an unhealthy mindset is the archenemy of global cooperation mechanisms, including the G20.

The danger of the reality is that global problems and challenges continue to intensify, while at the same time, the world's sense of urgency and unity to overcome difficulties, as well as its will and ability to deal with global challenges, have been weakened by various factors, and people all over the world are becoming more divided. Many have the feeling that it is becoming increasingly difficult for countries to reach a consensus, let alone carry out common actions. The world has high expectations of the G20 and hopes to see some important consensus come from it and some common actions start here.

It should be emphasized that the G20 mechanism, which was born at the time of the 2008 financial crisis, is the result of cooperation between developed and developing economies. The G20 countries represent two-thirds of the world's population, 85 percent of global GDP, and more than 75 percent of international trade. The mechanism used to see many highlights, including the help it provided to deal with the 2008 crisis and the announcement that the leaders of China and the US will sign the Paris Agreement before the 2016 G20 Summit. These results benefit not only developing countries, but also the US and the West enormously.

However, after that, which country has frequently "withdrawn" from various global cooperation mechanisms? Who is building a "small yard and high fence?" Who is promoting bloc confrontation in the international arena? Who is stirring up trouble around the world and undermining normal cooperation? The countercurrents caused by these movements around the world have inevitably affected the global cooperation mechanism, including the G20. Before the summit, Washington inexplicably issued a "warning" to China, urging it not to "play the role of spoiler" at the G20 summit. In this regard, we would like to say that these words are quite accurate if we swap China with the US.

Last year, the G20 Bali Leaders' Declaration was announced and hard-won results were achieved under Indonesia's G20 presidency. We hope that this year's G20 summit in New Delhi will eliminate disruptions and become a success story, and that we can eventually see a joint statement that builds consensus. It is the duty of every G20 member to let the mechanism continue playing the role of a platform for seeking common ground while reserving and resolving differences, striving for mutual benefits and win-win results, and injecting confidence and certainty into the stability of the global economy. It is not only the expectation of developing countries, but also in the long-term interests of the US and Western countries to let consensus transcend differences and gather strength through cooperation.

 US President Joe Biden said on Monday that the diplomatic sprint through Vietnam and India has "strengthened America's leadership on the global stage." However, it doesn't seem to be welcomed by the American public.

Biden's trip may "ultimately do little to alter his political fortunes back home, where his polling numbers are low" and there might be "a tight race against his predecessor, Donald J. Trump," according to The New York Times on Monday.

Some Senate Democrats even said President Biden's moribund poll numbers are "concerning" and "frustrating," and they are doubtful whether "the White House will change how voters view him before the 2024 election."

While there is still time before the climax of the election, Biden's Asia trip has contributed little to helping him win favor within the US. What the president faces back home is a low approval rating and a host of domestic challenges.

Foreign diplomacy doesn't concern the majority of American voters, nor is it a determinant in the general election, unless there is a major diplomatic crisis linked to domestic issues. Meanwhile, problems of real concern to the American public, such as gun violence, ethnic tensions and government shutdowns, have been left hanging.

Sun Chenghao, a fellow and head of US-EU program at Center for International Security and Strategy in Tsinghua University, believes that "it may be too early to judge the direct impact Biden's diplomatic moves may have on the election or his approval rate."

Nevertheless, the current US foreign diplomacy now seems to completely serve its internal policy. The complex situation of US domestic politics and a variety of challenges have scorched the Biden administration, forcing the president to transfer the pressure through external means, for example, creating geopolitical tensions or diplomatic results, to enhance domestic approval. In this way, foreign relations have become a tool for US politicians in partisan struggle. 

When it comes to Biden's rival, Sun added that while Trump has received great attention, it's the group of voters in the middle that will ultimately decide the winner. If this group of people chooses Biden, it may not because they support him, but rather because they cannot accept Trump.

Wang Yiwei, director of the Institute of International Affairs at the Renmin University of China, added that "Biden is now trying to prevent Trump from coming to power by taking advantage of people's concerns over Trump, and next year there will be more heated insults. In this way, the internal contradictions in the US will be further radicalized."

At the same time, China-US relations are always a critical issue for both parties in US election. In this regard, Biden has inherited many of Trump's policies toward China, and even further escalated the containment of China, especially in terms of technology blockade.

Although the Biden administration's policy toward China has recently shown a positive signal, the overall tune remains containment. Biden now insists he's not trying to "contain" China, but the high wall is only being built more solid. Taking the defeat of China as the top priority and campaign card will only cause the US to ignore its own internal problems and challenges, waste resources and time, and be plunged into unnecessary confrontation. 

The US electoral politics itself has a string of drawbacks since its birth. Under this political election system, a policy may only last for four years, and bipartisan politics will bring about instability in national policy, be it the China policy, or other foreign policies. As a result, other countries will lower the expectations of the US policy.

Over time, the system has deviated from its original design to some extent, including the details of some rules in election, but it is difficult to carry out an overall reform, which has led to the disordered money-oriented politics in the US election.

The ills of unscrupulous American electoral politics is already a cliché, but they seem to be even more troublesome. Against the backdrop of the US exacerbating geopolitical contradictions, the world will pay for the failures of the American political system and party campaign. This will not only fail to resolve America's own problems, but will also backfire and drag the world into the mire. Therefore, no matter who is elected, we hope that the US will put aside its selfish self-interest and zero-sum mentality, stop the "internalization" of foreign diplomacy, and seek for a win-win future.

The growing US' geopolitical competition with Russia and China marks the end of the post-Cold War world order, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, speaking at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies on Wednesday. "What we are experiencing now is more than a test of the post-Cold War order. It's the end of it," he noted. "Decades of relative geopolitical stability have given way to an intensifying competition with authoritarian powers, revisionist powers." This statement appears to be a rallying cry for a "new cold war." 

Since the post-Cold War order is coming to an end, what kind of new world order does the US want? Various signs indicate that the US wants major power competition and camp confrontation in order to maintain its global hegemony, even at the expense of the interests of other countries, including allies, and partner nations. However, the reality is that major power competition goes against the trend of the times and cannot solve the US' own problems and the challenges facing the world. It will only further divide the world, leading the world to slide toward a more dangerous cliff edge.

Regarding Blinken's remarks, there are two main points to consider. Firstly, Blinken was creating a sense of crisis in the world. The underlying message to US allies and other countries is that there are challengers, particularly China and Russia, who want to change the existing order. Secondly, Blinken's remarks also reflect a sense of anxiety in the US. The US is attempting to slow down China's rise through strategic competition, while hoping to sustain its hegemony without jeopardizing its own interests. However, it seems that the US has no clear solution to this dilemma. 

China is one of the beneficiaries of the existing system and does not seek to challenge or subvert this order. However, the US has viewed any legitimate demand made by China, even those that reflect the reasonable demands of the majority of developing countries, as a challenge and ill-intentioned sabotage. 

Xin Qiang, deputy director of the American Studies Center of Fudan University, believes that US irrational crackdown on China will only irritate China and other developing countries. Many developing countries share common demands with China, but the US opposes whatever China proposes and intends to strangle its legitimate right for development. This will ultimately lead to the destruction of the existing international order and be counterproductive to the US' goals.

The US believes that by containing China, it will gain an advantage. However, whatever damage they're doing to China, it also backfires on the US and even the world. 

The US now sees China as a competitor and challenger, opposing and obstructing anything that may benefit China, regardless of its impact on the US. This approach not only fails to maintain US hegemony but also leads it further away from the right direction. 

Today, the US is embroiled in simultaneous confrontations with China and Russia. The US needs to think carefully, as it will be more difficult to engage in a "new cold war" compared to the previous one. In the 1970s, the US GDP accounted for nearly one-third of the global total, but now it is only one-fourth. Its two major opponents are the nuclear power Russia and the economic powerhouse China. In order to defeat Russia, the US must ultimately dismantle its nuclear deterrence, which would be a thrilling adventure. 

As for China, the US is attempting to stifle its development by imposing unlimited technological restrictions, but it is unable to completely decouple from China economically. For the US and its main allies, China is either their largest single trading partner or one of the largest. Today, the US is a reckless strategic aggressor, attempting to unite its relatively weaker strength with its allies to wage a new cold war. It should be noted that the power of US allies has declined significantly, and the unity of the "West" is crippled due to the US transitioning from a "blood donor" to a "vampire".

The current generation of American elites arrogantly seeks to replicate the victory of the Cold War, but they will never succeed. Instead, the US will face a different ending.

The United Nations General Assembly is currently underway, and countries of the "Global South" are receiving particular attention. In fact, since this year, from India hosting the online "Voice of Global South Summit" to the Munich Security Conference mentioning "Global South" 55 times in its report, from the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Hiroshima emphasizing the strengthening of relations with the "Global South" to Western countries and Russia vigorously seeking the support of "Global South" countries over the Ukraine issue, the strategic importance of the "Global South" has become increasingly prominent, and the popularity of this concept continues to rise.

The popularity of the "Global South" concept may be linked to two specific events: The first is the "Voice of Global South Summit" held by India on January 12 and 13 of this year, with the participation of 120 countries, although China was not invited; the second event is the G7 summit held in Hiroshima, Japan in May. This summit had two agendas, one of which was to "strengthen ties with the Global South," leading to the invitation of some developing countries, while China, similarly, was not invited.

In reality, the concept of the "Global South" still has many ambiguous aspects at present, and the idea of a "Global South" without China is even a pseudo-proposition.

Firstly, there is currently no universally recognized standard for defining "Global South." For example, some people believe that if the "Global North" refers to developed countries, then the "Global South" represents a synonym for developing countries, underdeveloped nations, and less-developed countries. Others argue that after the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, there was a significant shift in the world order, and as a result, "Global South" gradually replaced the term "Third World." In other words, "Global South" replacing "Third World" continues to carry strong political connotations.

Because the definitions of "Global South" are diverse, many people often use or interpret this term as they please, parroting or presenting their own understanding and definitions of "Global South." In terms of the purpose of this definition, one view is that the concept of "Global South" highlights the multiple impacts of globalization on developing countries; another view is that "Global South" embodies the determination of "the South" countries to resist the hegemonic power of "the North" countries. It can be imagined that such arbitrary speculation or self-talk can only lead to confusion in academic theories and concepts, and even result in different opinions.

Secondly, the G7 led by the US and some Western public opinion hype up the "Global South" with the motive of excluding China from the family of developing countries. As early as when Donald Trump was in office, the US had hyped up the idea that "China is not a developing country."

In the "Memorandum on Reforming Developing-Country Status in the World Trade Organization" published on July 26, 2019, the US announced in a high profile that "the United States has never accepted China's claim to developing-country status." As for why the US promotes India to become the leader of the "Global South," on the one hand, it is nothing more than wanting to use India's role as the rotating chair of the G20 to enhance its international status and woo India before the G20 meetings; on the other hand, it is an attempt to drive a wedge between China and India and exclude China from the "Global South" family.

However, the international status of a country is not determined by a few countries, but by the majority of countries in the world. The US and West have their own calculations, but they have miscalculated from the very beginning. The United Nations Development Programme, in a research report about building a "Global South" in 2004, explicitly included China in the category of "Global South" countries.

Indeed, China's economy is rapidly developing and its international status is increasing day by day, but China's status as a developing country has not fundamentally changed. China is still in the primary stage of socialism and its basic national conditions have not changed. China's international status as the largest developing country in the world remains unchanged. As President Xi Jinping emphasized in his important speech at the High-level Dialogue on Global Development on June 24, 2022, China has always been a member of the big family of developing countries.

Moreover, some people in the West attempt to exclude China from the "Global South," but they cannot deny our close ties and cooperation with developing countries, nor can they deny the contributions China has made to the development of "the South" countries and South-South cooperation. In fact, China has made significant contributions to South-South cooperation in the past and present, and will continue to make efforts in the future.

Nepali Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal will be on an official visit to China from September 23 to 30, during which he will attend the opening ceremony of the 19th Asian Games in Hangzhou, and meet President Xi Jinping as well as several other leaders. Dahal believes the visit will strengthen and deepen the traditional friendly relations between China and Nepal. Another aim of the visit is to seek further avenues of bilateral cooperation.

On September 7, the first batch of imported goods under the China-Nepal Transit Transport Agreement, consisting of 15 tons of turmeric powder, arrived in the Nepali capital of Kathmandu after transiting through China. The turmeric powder was imported by Nepal from Vietnam and transported to Kathmandu via Tianjin Port in northern China and the Zhangmu-Tatopani border point. Both China and Nepal have positively commented on this achievement. The Nepali side stated that the successful transportation of the first batch of goods under the China-Nepal Transit Transport Agreement signifies the beginning of a transformative journey toward enhanced economic cooperation, increased trade volumes and shared prosperity. Chinese Ambassador to Nepal Chen Song noted that the successful implementation of the China-Nepal Transit Transport Agreement will diversify Nepal's international trade and facilitate Nepal's trade with the whole world. In the future, the time and cost of importing and exporting goods via China will be further reduced, which will have a positive impact on Nepal's trade.

In contrast to the substantial progress made by China and Nepal in areas such as cross-border transportation, Nepal has been facing ongoing issues with another neighboring country, India, recently. In May, the Nepali government was infuriated by a mural displayed within the newly inaugurated Indian Parliament building. This mural, titled "Akhand Bharat," included the Chinese Tibet region, parts of Afghanistan, as well as the entire territories of Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. As early as May 2020, India inaugurated a road connecting the Indian mainland to the border region, passing through the disputed territory of Kalapani, which is claimed by Nepal.

In fact, the incidents of the mural and road inauguration reflect the ongoing contestation and counter-control between Nepal and India, which has been a longstanding feature of their relationship. For a long time, India has adopted a paternalistic approach in its policies toward Nepal. While providing some support and assistance, India often resorts to rude and unilateral actions toward Nepal.

Nepal is located north of the Himalayas and is surrounded by Indian territory in the west, south and east. It heavily relies on India for economic and external communication, including the transit of essential goods such as food, medicine and fuel through India. India is Nepal's largest trading partner. In addition to the geographical dependence on India for external connectivity, Nepal is also deeply influenced, and even controlled, by India in political, social and security domains.

However, this has become a bargaining chip for India's attempt to control Nepal. In history, India has repeatedly used the agreement on transit through Nepal as a coercive diplomatic tool, threatening and implementing blockades against Nepal to force the Nepali authorities to adopt domestic and foreign policies that align with India's wishes. This has caused serious dissatisfaction among various levels of Nepali society and the government. Nepal has also actively sought alternative transportation routes to reduce its dependence on India. In 2017, Nepal officially joined the Belt and Road Initiative, which was a clear indication to India that Nepal is a country with the right to make independent choices.

Objective conditions determine that Nepal will continue to rely to varying degrees on the transit routes provided by India in the past, present and future, which means that Nepal cannot completely sever ties with India. In this situation, how to handle relations with India without compromising national sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity while ensuring smooth communication between Nepal and the outside world has always been the greatest challenge for Nepal's foreign policy. It is precisely because of this, after Prachanda assumed the position of Prime Minister for the third time, he made his first visit to India. 

In contrast, China strictly adheres to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and never interferes in Nepal's internal affairs. All factions in Nepal actively seek development and close relations with China. After assuming the position of Deputy Prime Minister, Narayan Kaji Shrestha stated that the country will "maintain relationships of equi-proximity with both our neighbors," namely China and India, emphasizing that the focus of governance will be on "containing inflation, maintaining reserves, raising capital expenses, narrowing the trade deficit and lowering interest rates" to promote Nepal's economic development. The results of Prachanda's visit are highly anticipated.

Grand theft. Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

A delegation of six US senators arrived in Shanghai on Saturday, beginning a visit to China. The trip comes at an important time in the still unsettled bilateral relationship between China and the US.

The delegation is led by the Senate's majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and includes a mix of Democratic and Republican senators from Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, New Hampshire and New York. After their initial stop in China, the five men and one woman will head to Japan and South Korea, both of which are viewed as reliable American allies.

American politics is fractured; the speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy was recently ousted because he could not rein in his Republican colleagues and the Democrats saw no reason to support him. McCarthy's dismissal was an embarrassment to himself. But it also showed just how volatile US domestic politics is. Compromise, an essential feature of democracies, is hard to find in Washington, and political positions have also hardened within the American electorate. The 2024 presidential election will likely solidify these opinions even further.

Another aspect that might harden next year is hostility toward China within official Washington.

That would be unfortunate, but right now blasting China is a convenient way for political elites to cover up their differences. Sadly, the only thing elite politicians seem to agree on these days is their belief that China is a bad actor on the global stage. If you're looking for anyone in Washington to say something positive about the hugely influential Belt and Road Initiative, good luck. It's more likely to find someone who believes in the possibility of zombies ruling the world.

On top of attacking China for its global interests, politicians try to amplify any negative economic news as evidence that the country is doomed. They conveniently overlook the fact that China's economic growth will continue to outpace that of the US for the rest of the year and beyond. The global economic situation would be in bad shape if China were to have growth forecasts anywhere close to what the US is likely to experience. 

The domestic US political response is not to proactively seek ways to make America stronger. Instead, politicians advance massive, but inadequate, policies that make vague promises about bolstering national security. One example is the CHIPS and Science Act which was passed by Congress despite critics pointing out numerous flaws associated with it. President Joe Biden contributes to this nonsense about China by refusing to erase the tariffs established by his predecessor even though the evidence continues to show the tariffs are doing more harm to the US than China.

The bottom line is that reality goes out the window whenever America's politicians talk about China.

Is it possible that the visit by Schumer and his colleagues could lead to some rational conversations regarding China within Congress? Will this visit build on the generally positive trips made over the past few months by the US secretaries of State, Treasury and Commerce? With each of those trips, there has been increased anticipation in the US that Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping will meet during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation gathering, scheduled for next month in San Francisco. Optimists believe that successful conversations might open the door to a state visit.

If Schumer wants to positively advance US-China relations, then he should consider taking back a recent statement indicating that he will carry a verbal hammer into any conversations with Chinese officials.

Schumer is from New York, a state that according to one estimate sustains almost 50,000 jobs per year because of trade with China. It's also reported that New York exported more than $37 billion to China between 2012 and 2022. My point: Imagine if the Democratic senator had spoken in advance of his trip about finding ways to expand trade between New York (and other states) with China as part of his visit. That would be leadership, something too often hard to find in Washington.

Keep in mind something that ought to be favorably viewed by China: Schumer and his fellow senators are not making a side trip to Taiwan; such visits by American officials derail any momentum in improving relations because of Beijing's insistence that US politicians are seeking to stoke discord between the island and the mainland by stopping in Taiwan.

China will not, and should not, sit by quietly if Schumer follows through on his promise to talk tough with Chinese officials and to make an issue of human rights as well as Fentanyl. In 2023, China and the global community are all too aware that "you must do what we want" screeds from a prominent American politician do nothing to improve the bilateral relationship. More importantly, the US is no longer positioned to dictate to any nation, especially powerful ones, about how to conduct their internal and external affairs.

The author is an associate professor at the Department of Communication and Organizational Leadership at Robert Morris University.

Many people say that this round of Israeli-Palestinian conflict erupted quite suddenly, and on the surface, it does seem so. Hamas launched a surprise attack on the Israel's military, catching them off guard and resulting in significant casualties that have shocked the world. Israel's retaliatory actions are bound to lead to more bloodshed and escalation of violence. Even though none of us want to see this happen, it is difficult to prevent it from occurring. International peace efforts are far from strong enough in the face of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an unavoidable fact and requires a more powerful collective effort from the international community to change it.

From a deeper perspective, this conflict is not sudden and has a certain inevitability. It once again announces to the world, through bloodshed and loss of life, that if fundamental solutions are not implemented for the Palestinian issue, and if the peace process is not promoted, bloodshed and conflict will recur. This is actually quite evident, but it has long been ignored by Western countries that bear the primary responsibility and influence in the Palestinian issue.

For many years, China has repeatedly called on the international community to prioritize the Palestinian issue on the international agenda on major multilateral occasions such as the United Nations. It has emphasized the need to advance the "two-state solution" with a stronger sense of urgency. Not long ago before the outbreak of this conflict, Permanent Mission of China to the UN was still stressing this point. Now, the necessity and urgency have been elevated to another level, given the high cost paid by Palestine, Israel, and the entire Middle East.

It's necessary to recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is a complex conglomerate of problems, and external interference is one of the main reasons why this problem has not been resolved and even intensifies hatred. The bias and interference by Western countries, led by the US, in the Israeli-Palestinian issue have been evident for a long time, and historical Middle East conflicts have often had US involvement behind the scenes. And after the escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the quick decision of the US and some Western countries to take sides not only does not help solve the problem but also adds fuel to the fire. Considering the large number of innocent civilians killed and injured in the conflict over the past two days, the immediate priority of the international community should be to urge both sides to cease fire quickly in order to prevent further humanitarian disasters.

A report from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development shows that the prolonged closure and military operations carried out by Israel during the occupation of Gaza from 2007 to 2018 have pushed Gaza's economy to the brink of collapse. Today, it has become one of the poorest and most volatile areas in the world. It can be said that this large-scale armed conflict between Palestine and Israel once again proves that the means of seeking absolute security, under the guise of peace by the US and the West, cannot achieve true peace and tranquility. It also exposes the essence of the US new Middle East strategy. We urge the US and other Western countries to stop this practice and truly participate in the Middle East peace process.

Middle East peace is by no means a road without a future. The key is to start walking the right path from now on, rather than taking the wrong path or even going back. According to media reports, this round of conflict between Palestine and Israel has already caused nearly 1,000 deaths and thousands of injuries on both sides. Moreover, the war may also spread to other countries. The latest development is that Israel and the armed group Hezbollah in Lebanon have engaged in a firefight. Many people worry whether this event will eventually lead to the "Sixth Middle East War."

At this moment, the international community should take urgent action. The United Nations issued a statement on October 7, calling it a "dangerous precipice," strongly condemning the attacks on civilians, and calling for an end to violence. UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged "all diplomatic efforts to avoid a wider conflagration." The UN Security Council plans to hold a closed-door meeting on the current situation between Palestine and Israel Sunday afternoon local time in New York to discuss solutions. Fundamentally, all parties involved in the Middle East peace process, including Palestine and Israel, must work toward creating conditions for the realization of the "two-state solution."

It has been 50 years since the Fourth Arab-Israeli War (also known as the Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War, October War) and 30 years since the signing of the Oslo Accords. War or peace? The Middle East is once again at a historical crossroads. The international community must take decisive and effective diplomatic actions to urge both sides to stop violence as soon as possible, exercise maximum restraint, and especially prevent the window of opportunity for peace from being closed by conflicts. China has always supported the convening of a larger-scale, more authoritative, and influential international peace conference to create conditions for the resumption of negotiations. This proposal is now more necessary and urgent.