China Declares Trade War Victory: Gloats At US “Suffering” After “Crushing Counterattack”

This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

Barely a day after China dropped the hammer on US stock markets by unveiling retaliatory tariffs on $50 billion in US imports that – unlike US measures that mostly targeted obscure industrial products – actually struck at key industries like soybean farmers, automobiles and airplanes, the Communist Party crowed about what it already sees as its “victory” in the nascent trade war in an editorial published by the Global Times, China’s state-owned, English-language tabloid and extremely hawkish party mouthpiece.

In the editorial, China swatted away US claims – repeated most recently by Larry Kudlow during this morning’s interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo – that China has somehow victimized the US via its trade agreements while gloating about the leadership’s decision to strike at a “massive weak spot” for the US economy.

While the tit-for-tat tariffs could hurt both economies, the damage to China’s economy caused by the US’s Section 301 tariffs will “pale in comparison to the damage done to the US economy via China’s retaliations.”

And just to illustrate that point, literally, a Chinese cartoonist showed that another way Beijing will hurt the US is by a “stockmarket squeeze.”

Furthermore, in standing up to America’s “bullying tactics”, China warns that the pleasure the US had derived from its sanctions in the past “will now cause them suffering as their financial and political gains diminish to zero.”

This is Beijing’s clear show of retaliation toward the proposed tariff list on Chinese products from the US. Beijing showed an impressive response time for its retaliation efforts, taking less than 12 hours to announce its trade countermeasures. Chinese officials agree that its country’s countermeasures match those imposed by the US and that they showcase China’s determination to win this trade war.

It is worth noting that China strikes the US side by targeting its most valuable imports, such as soybeans, automobiles and chemical products. These aspects were targeted because they represent key pillars in the US imports and can create a massive weak spot for the US economy if their profitability is at risk.

Although China will sustain financial losses thanks to the US’ Section 301 investigation tariffs,they will pale in comparison to the damage done to the US economy via China’s retaliations.

China’s counter tariffs are a spectacular way of standing up to America’s bullying tactics, not only for itself, but for other countries threatened by the US’s new trade policies.

And with China digging in for a long, protracted trade conflict, one from which it will never surrender, if it is indeed Kudlow’s – and the Administration’s – hope that China will concede to US trade demands, then there will be much disappointment all around.

Underscoring China’s preparation for a “scorched earth”, and tit-for-tat escalating war, the Chinese government has told its citizens it is prepared to go toe-to-toe in its fight with Washington. In fact, more and more Chinese citizens think that an “epic trade war” is inevitable, which would knock some common sense into the US government so that it will change its way of dealing with China.

Hawkish politicians in Washington have obviously overestimated the capability and endurance of the US economy in a trade war, since they believe they can do whatever they like. China has shown a great deal of restraint for now, but if the US persists in this trade war, China is ready to fight to the end.

Washington will eventually see what they have lost, thanks to their actions, and it will only serve to embarrass the US. This trade war will serve as a good example to the US that it cannot use intimidating trade tariffs as a form of diplomacy.

Before China announced its recent retaliatory tariffs on US products, Washington enjoyed crushing and threatening other countries on trade sanctions. Now, as China deploys its counterattack, the pleasure that the US achieved from those tariffs will now cause them suffering as their financial and political gains diminish to zero.

If a trade war does happen, China has contingency plans to help its economy avoid a slump.

And, in a dramatic break with precedent, China warned it could even take steps to weaken the US dollar, something that, if history is any guide, should be a concern to the Treasury market as it would suggest that China may be thinking of liquidating its Treasurys .

Many believe that the Trump administration’s $50 billion tariff on Chinese products is meant to pressure China to submit to the US demands. If that is the case, the US will undoubtedly lose. This is because the Chinese government has rallied its citizens and is prepared to go toe-to-toe in its fight with Washington. In fact, more and more Chinese citizens think that an “epic trade war’ is inevitable, and could knock some common sense into the US government, so that it will change its way of dealing with China.

If the trade war happens, China will show that it has just as many reserve plans as the US, if not more. Chinese experts suggest that China could even take actions to weaken the strength of its currency. Since China is the world’s largest trading economy and the largest buyer of commodities like oil products, China could use its influence to push its own currency, RMB, in global markets to reduce the dominance of the US dollar. That would be a heavy blow to Washington.

If this trade war comes to pass, it will be an evenly matched total war between China and the US economies, and not some small scuffle. It would be delusional for the US to think it will be victorious at the end of this trade war. China comes up with the conclusion in confidence, and will not shy away from letting Washington know in this situation.

And while taking overt steps to weaken a currency would violate a G-20 communique agreeing to avoid currency wars through competitive devaluations, we doubt that would stop Beijing should Trump push it too far.

Meanwhile, a greater – and more likely – risk than a Treasury dump by Beijing is another devaluation: after all the Yuan is already back to where it was in the days just before the Yuan’s 2016 deval. Fears about an impending yuan devaluation akin to the drop that unleashed turbulence across global markets back in August 2015 have historically had a negative impact. Traders will remember 2016, when markets got off to one of their worst early performances in decades as continued daily, if less acute, Yuan devaluations hurt stocks.

While this warning appears to have been largely overlooked by markets, it’s definitely something to keep in mind.

In Unprecedented Move, China Plans To Pay For Oil Imports With Yuan Instead Of Dollars

This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

Just days after Beijing officially launched Yuan-denominated crude oil futures (with a bang, as shown in the chart below, surpassing Brent trading volume) which are expected to quickly become the third global price benchmark along Brent and WTI, China took the next major step in the challenging the Dollar’s supremacy as global reserve currency (and internationalizing the Yuan) when on Thursday Reuters reported that China took the first steps to paying for crude oil imports in its own currency instead of the US Dollars.

A pilot program for yuan payment could be launched as soon as the second half of the year and regulators have already asked some financial institutions to “prepare for pricing crude imports in the yuan“, Reuters sources reveal.

According to the proposed plan, Beijing would start with purchases from Russia and Angola, two nations which, like China, are keen to break the dollar’s global dominance. They are also two of the top suppliers of crude oil to China, along with Saudi Arabia.

A change in the default crude oil transactional currency – which for decades has been the “Petrodollar”, blessing the US with global reserve currency status – would have monumental consequences for capital allocations and trade flows, not to mention geopolitics: as Reuters notes, a shift in just a small part of global oil trade into the yuan is potentially huge. “Oil is the world’s most traded commodity, with an annual trade value of around $14 trillion, roughly equivalent to China’s gross domestic product last year.” Currently, virtually all global crude oil trading is in dollars, barring an estimated 1 per cent in other currencies. This is the basis of US dominance in the world economy.

However, as shown in the chart below which follows the first few days of Chinese oil futures trading, this status quo may be changing fast.

Superficially, for China it would be a matter of nationalistic pride to see oil trade transact in Yuan: “Being the biggest buyer of oil, it’s only natural for China to push for the usage of yuan for payment settlement. This will also improve the yuan liquidity in the global market,” said one of the people briefed on the matter by Chinese authorities.

There are other considerations behind the launch of the Yuan-denominated oil contract as Goldman explains:

• A commercial benchmark and hedging tool. Until now, Chinese oil imports were based on FOB benchmarks, with long-term procurement contracts settling off Platts Oman/Dubai or Dated Brent. The INE contract has therefore the potential to become the pricing reference for CIF China crude oil, enabling corporate financial hedging. Its warehouse structure is however likely to limit its use for physical crude delivery and may in fact at times reduce its hedge efficiency.


• A new investment vehicle for onshore investors. The majority of China commodity futures trading volumes are from retail investors, yet these had until now little ability to trade oil futures. China’s capital control was the main bottleneck  to trading contracts like Brent as authorities only allow $50,000 outflow a year per person. While several petrochemical and bitumen contracts already trade in China, INE will be the first contract for crude oil, likely drawing significant interest.


• Direct access to China’s commodity markets for offshore investors. China offers deep and liquid commodity markets to its onshore investors. Due to China’s tight capital controls, however, foreign investors have so far only been able to trade these through qualified onshore subsidiaries. The INE contract opens up the first channel for offshore investors to trade in its onshore commodity market, with both the USD deposit and capital gains transferable back to offshore accounts. The government further announced last week that it would waive income taxes for foreign investors trading these new contracts for the first three years. The obligation to trade in Yuan will also add a currency risk exposure to offshore investors. We illustrate in Exhibit 6 a likely template (amongst others) of how overseas investors will be able to access INE liquidity.

The danger, of course, is that such a shift would also boost the value of the Yuan, hardly what China needs considering it was just two a half years ago that Beijing launched a controversial Yuan devaluation to boost its exports and economy.

Still, in light of the relative global economic stability, Beijing may be willing to take the gamble on a stronger Yuan if it means greater geopolitical clout and further acceptance of the renminbi.

Which is why restructuring oil fund flows may be the best first step: as of this moment, China is the world’s second-largest oil consumer and in 2017 overtook the United States as the biggest importer of crude oil; its demand is a key determinant of global oil prices.

If China’s plan to push the Petroyuan’s acceptance proves successful, it will result in greater momentum across all commodities, and could trigger the shift of other product payments to the yuan, including metals and mining raw materials.

Besides the potential of giving China more power over global oil prices, “this will help the Chinese government in its efforts to internationalize yuan,” said Sushant Gupta, research director at energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie. In a Wednesday note, Goldman Sachs said that the success of Shanghai’s crude futures was “indirectly promoting the use of the Chinese currency (which, however as noted above, has negative trade offs as it would also result in a stronger Yuan, something the PBOC may not be too excited about).

Meanwhile, China is wasting no time, and Unipec, the trading arm of Asia’s largest refiner Sinopec already signed a deal to import Middle East crude priced against the newly-launched Shanghai crude futures contract, which incidentally is traded in Yuan.

The bottom line here is whether Beijing is indeed prepared and ready to challenge the US Dollar for the title of global currency hegemon. As Rueters notes, China’s plan to use yuan to pay for oil comes amid a more than year-long gradual strengthening of the currency, which looks set to post a fifth straight quarterly gain, its longest winning streak since 2013.

In a sign that China’s recent Draconian capital control crackdowns have sapped market confidence in a freely-traded Yuan, the currency retained its No.5 ranking as a domestic and global payment currency in January this year, unmoved from a year ago, but its share among other currencies fell to 1.7 percent from 2.5 percent, according to industry tracker SWIFT.

A slew of measures put in place in the last 1-1/2 years to rein in capital flowing out of the country amid a slide in yuan value has taken off some its shine as a global payment currency.

But the yuan has now appreciated 3.4 percent against the dollar so far this year, with solid gains in recent sessions.

“For PBOC and other regulators, internationalization of the yuan is clearly one of the priorities now, and if this plan goes off smoothly then they can start thinking about replicating this model for other commodities purchases,” said a Reuters source.

Still, it will be a long and difficult climb before the Yuan can challenge the dollar and for Beijing to shift the bulk of its commodity purchases to the yuan because of the currency’s illiquidity in forex markets. According to the latest BIS Triennial Survey, nearly 90% of all transactions in the $5 trillion-a-day FX markets involved the dollar on one side of a trade, while only 4% use the yuan.

* * *

Still, not everyone is convinced that the new Yuan-denominated contract will create a “petro-yuan” as the following take from Goldman highlights:

The launch of the INE contract is not just about oil, as it will also be the first Yuan denominated commodity contract tradable by offshore investors. Such a set-up meets the PBOC’s monetary policy committee goal to raise the profile of its currency in the pricing of commodities. It has raised however the question of whether the INE contract is an incremental step in achieving the currency reserve status for the Yuan. We do not believe so.

While the INE launch does represent an additional step in the CNY internationalization, the CNY denomination of the INE contract does not in itself imply CNY investments. The INE contract does not represent an opening of China’s capital accounts since foreign deposits operate in a closed circuit, deposited in designated accounts and not to be used to purchase other domestic assets. In practice, the collateral deposit and any capital gains can be transferred back to offshore accounts. The potential for greater foreign ownership of Chinese assets is therefore not impacted by CNY oil invoicing and would require instead oil exporters to recycle their proceeds in local assets, for example. The incentive to do this has not changed with the introduction of the INE contracts. In particular, most Middle East oil producers still have currencies pegged to the dollar and limited ability to hedge CNY exposure.

Whether or not Goldman is right remains to be seen, however it is undeniable that a monumental change is afoot in global capital flows, where the US – whether Beijing wants to or not – will soon be forced to defend its currency status as oil exporters (and investors in this highly financialized market) will now have a choice: go with US hegemony, or start accepting Yuan in exchange for the world’s most important commodity.

Air Force General Admits The US Can’t Stop Chinese Or Russian Hypersonic Missiles

A top United States Air Force general has admitted that the US is powerless against hypersonic missiles capable of killing millions of people. Air Force General John Hyten testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 20 and admitted the horrifying reality.

When asked about the effectiveness of US defenses, General Hyten revealed the country would be powerless against some state-of-the-art weapons, such as the hypersonic missiles currently in the hands of the Chinese and Russians. According to The Daily Star, hypersonic missiles can deploy warheads that travel at 20 times the speed of sound and can dodge air defenses as they loop through the skies.

“We have a very difficult – well, our defense is our deterrent capability,” said Hyten. “We don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us, so our response would be our deterrent force, which would be the triad and the nuclear capabilities that we have to respond to such a threat.” Hyten eluded that should the US be attacked with one such missile, that the military could respond with a nuclear attack.

These comments come as fears of a third world war continue to heighten and among the major advancements in the Russian and Chinese weapons technology. Both of these countries would be a force to be reckoned with should another world war break out.

The Russians have been accomplishing a great deal in stealth technology, especially with Kilo-class boats converted into stealth subs. Dubbed “the black holes of the Russian Navy,” these quiet refitted diesel subs with the stealth technology are starting to roll steadily off of the assembly lines.

The Chinese are also upgrading their submarine fleet from a technological perspective (the boat) and also making improvements in their missile systems.  Such actions come on the heels of American positioning in the Pacific. –SHTFPlan

Zhou Chenming, a Beijing-based military observer, previously warned of the dangers posed by the sophisticated technology. “Compared to conventional ballistic missiles, HGVs are more complex and difficult to intercept,” Zhou said. “The US, Japan, and India should be worried about China’s developments in HGV technology because it can reach targets quicker and more accurately, with military bases in Japan and even nuclear reactors in India being targeted.”

China Ponders MILITARY ACTION As Response To US Legislation On Taiwan

A widely-read and a rather provocative mouthpiece for Beijing quoted Chinese observers who said the country would have no choice but to respond with “counter moves” if the U.S. were to press ahead and elevate its relations with Taiwan.  And one of those countermoves could include military action.

The legislation, known as the Taiwan Travel Act, is upsetting the Chinese. It came into effect Friday after President Donald Trump signed the bill and added to already bow tight tensions and a fear of a war. The Taiwan Travel Act allows US representatives to meet officials from the self-ruled island of Taiwan, but the Chinese government believes the newly signed legislation is a direct threat to them.

China has also recently threatened Taiwan for agreeing to be cordial and diplomatic with the US, saying the island’s independence will not be tolerated.

China’s threat to Taiwan is ratcheting up fears of a third world war. A comment by the Chinese government saying they will “never tolerate Taiwanese independence” has prompted fears an all-out invasion is imminent.

The chilling threat was made by Premier Li Keqiang as top Chinese officials met in Beijing for the annual meeting of parliament on Monday. “We will never tolerate any separatist schemes or activities for Taiwan independence,” Li Keqiang said. He also stated that China will promote the peaceful growth of relations across the Taiwan Strait and “advance China’s peaceful reunification. We will remain firm in safeguarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and will never tolerate any separatist schemes or activities for Taiwan independence.” -SHTFPlan

China should and will take military action if the US decides to press ahead with the legislation designed to encourage high-level contact with Taiwanese officials, according to a report by state media outlet The Global Times.  Liu Weidong, a researcher at the Institute of American Studies of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the Chinese army would resume its military probes circling the island and send more military vessels and airplanes if any “Taiwan independence” secessionist forces perceive the U.S bill as a pro-independence signal.

In response to the bill, China said Saturday that it “firmly opposes” the move and demanded the U.S. “correct its mistake,” according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s website. The new legislation comes on the heels of president Donald Trump’s calls for tariffs and reduced trade imbalance with China.  It also comes shortly after the Chinese president, Communist dictator Xi Jinping gave himself the go-ahead to remain in power for as long as he wants. There are about 3,000 delegates to China’s National People’s Congress, and theoretically, they can vote any way they want. But in its history, it has never vetoed a proposal by China’s Communist Party.

China Deploys 300,000 Soldiers To N. Korean Border In “Preparation For Potential War”

This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

While the specter of a nuclear war with North Korea has faded in recent weeks, China is not taking chances, and ahead of the Winter Olympics in South Korea, the Chinese government has deployed 300,000 troops and multiple mobile strike groups to its highly-guarded border with North Korea, a move which signals that Beijing is quietly gearing for a potential crisis between Kim Jong Un and the United States in the coming months.

According to South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo news, “China is preparing for a potential war on the Korean Peninsula by reinforcing missile defenses near the border with North Korea” citing a report from Radio Free Asia. “Military units in Yanbian were relocated from Heilongjiang Province, thus adding 300,000 troops along the border.”

RFA quoted a North Korean source in China that the Chinese military late last year deployed another missile defense battery at an armored division in Helong, west of Longjing in the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture. Now it is deploying missile defense batteries near North Korean reservoirs by the Apnok and Duman rivers.

The reason for the increased missile presence is that Chinese troops in the border area could be swept away if the North tore down the banks of the reservoirs or they were destroyed by missiles or air strikes, the source added.

On Jan. 24, Taiwan’s Central News Agency reported that the 78th Group Army, the first Chinese military unit that would cross the border into the North in the event of a war on the Korean Peninsula, has been armed with newest surface-to-air missiles against South Korean and U.S. aircraft and missiles.

The reported deployment comes just days before the start of the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in South Korea.

What is peculiar about this escalation is that it comes as Kim Jong Un’s regime has – at least optically – attempted to “thaw” relations with Seoul, wishing the South Korean government a “successful” competition and hoping to “ease military tensions” before the games begin. In a rare case of Korean unity, both North and South Korea plan to march into the Opening Ceremonies under a “united Korean flag” and will combine their female hockey teams.

Meanwhile, Trump has been busy pushing his domestic agenda to engage in Twitter bickering and comparing nuclear button size with Kim Jong-Un, allowing tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations to ease in recent weeks, although if China knows something, this tentative detente will not last long.

WW3 ALERT: Chinese Troops Told To ‘Ready For War’ And Sent To North Korean Border

Chinese tanks, soldiers, and military trucks have been gathering on the border in preparation for a war. The Chinese military was quickly rushed to the border they share with North Korea after being told to get “ready for war.”

According to the Daily Star, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces have been building up military assets in the cover of the night around the Tumen River in Yanji city, Jilin province, which borders North Korea. Chinese commanders are reported to have recently conducted the so-called “war ceremony” – urging their troops to be ready to fight as columns of PLA trucks have been pictured on the move near Yanji City which is close to the triple border between China, Russia, and North Korea.

China is North Korea’s only traditional ally and has been coming under pressure to tackle Kim Jong-un from the US.  Sources cited in Chinese media have claimed that the PLA is “preparing for war on the Korean Peninsula.” China would be expected to use its military forces to help quell a flood of refugees should the United States initiate an attack North Korea and chubby dictator, Kim Jong-Un. Beijing is also expected to quickly move into the rogue state to seize assets, and potentially have China join the war on the side of North Korea once the US begins a so-far theoretical attack.

According to Zerohedge, if the media report is accurate, it would suggest that China – fearing the worst – is preparing for a full-blown war on the Korean Penisula. Previously, internal documents leaked from China’s main state-owned telecommunications company shows three villages and cities in the northeastern border province of Jilin, have been designated for refugee camps-if war breaks out. China is afraid a swarm of refugees from North Korea could cross the Tumen River into China.

Zhang Liangui, a professor of international strategic research at the Communist Party’s Central Party School said, “it is highly possible that there is a conflict between North Korea and the United States now. What China does here is to be prepared for any kind of situation happening on the Korean Peninsula.”

While China prepares for a ground war on the Korean Peninsula by moving military assets to border cities along the Tumen River, there is another threat breaking Tuesday morning: North Korea is preparing to test the largest ICBM to date. Coupled with  im Jong-un’s “Happy New Year” threat to the world when he warned the “nuclear button” is on his desk, this could be the beginning stages of a third world war.

US president Donald Trump has warned there would be “no friendly solution” until China stops backing North Korea.

WW3 Alert: US And China Preparing For ‘All Hell To Break Loose’ On Korean Peninsula

The United States and China are preparing for a situation in which all hell breaks loose on the Korean Peninsula.  Both nations are taking unprecedented steps as tensions toward a nuclear war ramp up even more.

The US has stepped up military drills, practiced air raids, and reportedly started preparing to seize North Korea’s nuclear weapons by force, a feat South Korea has declared won’t be all that easy. South Korean officials have been talking up a pause in military drills in hopes that it will lead to a peaceful Winter Olympics in February, but the US has yet to agree to halt said drills.  Instead, the US  brought in a record number of stealth aircraft this month to train up on an air war against North Korea. Immediately after the drill, which featured a marked increase in simulated bomb runs on North Korean targets, the US and South Korea reportedly engaged in drills to infiltrate North Korea and neutralize its weapons of mass destruction.

At a speech at the Atlantic Council last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the US was preparing plans to seize loose nuclear weapons, should North Korea somehow collapse or become unstable.

President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, also flatly rejected the clearest path to peace by saying the US would never accept a nuclear-armed North Korea. He recommitted the US to using force if necessary.

“We’re not committed to a peaceful resolution — we’re committed to a resolution,” McMaster told the BBC. “We have to be prepared, if necessary, to compel the denuclearization of North Korea without the cooperation of that regime.” –Business Insider

China is also bracing itself for a potential war. Across North Korea’s border in China’s Jilin province, state-run media ran a full-page instructional package on how to survive a nuclear blast. The page doesn’t mention North Korea, but it doesn’t need to. According to Business Insider, there are also a few notable new additions to Jilin. Five new refugee camps built “because the situation on the China-North Korea border has intensified lately,” a leaked document seen by The New York Times said. The camps could accommodate thousands of North Koreans who might pour across the border in a time of war.

Of course, China’s preparations don’t end there either. They also have an offensive approach to the heightened tensions. China’s air force engaged in exercises along “routes and areas it has never flown before” earlier this month, with surveillance aircraft over the Yellow and East seas near the Korean Peninsula, according to the South China Morning Post. “The timing of this high-profile announcement by the PLA is also a warning to Washington and Seoul not to provoke Pyongyang any further,” Li Jie, a military expert based in Beijing, told the Post, using the abbreviation for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA). In addition to flexing its military muscle against the US, China has been increasingly assertive in the South China Sea. It has also dispatched military spy planes to encircle Taiwan and provide up-to-date info, which the Macau-based military observer Antony Wong Dong told the Post was “very unusual.”

All of this is in preparation for an “all hell breaks loose” scenario that’s likely to unfold on the Korean Peninsula.

Major Investment Bank Predicts: ‘China And Russia Engineer A Collapse Of Bitcoin’

A major investment bank has predicted Bitcoin’s crash and pinpointed it to next year after it soars to over $60,000.  Russia and China work together to “engineer the crash,” of Bitcoin the bank has predicted.

According to Saxo Bank, Bitcoin will continue to rise during most of 2018 until it peaks at around $60,000. At that point, Moscow and Beijing will facilitate a crash of the cryptocurrency as they harshly crackdown on it. Saxo Bank predicts that more money will be gambled in digital currencies until more than £750billion ($1trillion) is invested worldwide.

The forecast assumes a Russian crackdown taking the form of the Kremlin mining of the cryptocurrency itself and “shifting the focus away from Bitcoin in an effort to keep more Russian capital onshore.” Meanwhile, in China, Saxo Bank predicts a state-sanctioned virtual currency will be launched which requires less computing power – and less power – to mine.  Eventually, due to the “heavy hand of state intervention,” interest in cryptocurrencies decreases and “completely sidelines the Bitcoin and crypto phenomenon from a price speculation angle,” according to the bank’s prediction.

The prediction also finishes with Bitcoin’s end price at just $1000.  Veteran investor Eric Schiffer has also shared his warning about the cryptocurrency. He thinks Bitcoin could become the biggest financial danger of the 21st century, branding it a “financial bubble bigger than the tulip craze.” He said: “I think bitcoin is a ‘tower of death’. It is going to result in the imminent death of your investment – a thermonuclear death.”

However, other experts, such as Jordan Hiscott, chief trader at Ayondo Markets, do not agree with Saxo Bank’s assessment and prediction.  Hiscott does not see a crash on the horizon for Bitcoin.  But he has also warned people to think twice before investing their hard-earned cash in cryptocurrencies.  “For good investment options find trusted companies that would do that for you or look for a commodity with actual underlying value,” said Hiscott.

Stephen Hawking: ‘Earth Will Become A Flaming Ball Of Fire By 2600’

Physicist and professor Stephen Hawking is warning that earth will become a flaming ball of fire by the year 2600. He also warns that if humans want to avoid permanent extinction, we should be making plans to evacuate the earth.

Hawking claims that mankind will destroy the earth making it a fireball within the next 600 years. The renowned physicist believes soaring population sizes and consequential increasing demands for energy and food will lead to the catastrophe. Hawking also says that humanity should begin looking to the stars to avoid this fate, with our nearest neighbor Alpha Centauri the best candidate for our escape. Hawking also urged financial backers to put funds behind a project that would send probes to the star system.

The Alpha Centauri system is the closest star system to our sun and consists of three stars. Of those three stars, Proxima is the closest to our sun. At a mere 4.367 light years away, on our sky’s dome, we see this multiple star system as a single star – the third-brightest star visible from Earth. And it’s this system that Hawking has his eye on.

Stephen Hawking

Hawking made the comments while speaking via video link at the Tencent Web Summit, held in Beijing. The British cosmologist, who was diagnosed with motor neuron disease at age 21, is backing the Breakthrough Starshot project. That project will likely see a probe sent to Alpha Centauri in the very near future; 20 years or so.

“The idea behind this innovation is to have the nano craft on the light beam. Such a system could reach Mars in less than an hour, or reach Pluto in days, pass Voyager in under a week and reach Alpha Centauri in just over 20 years,” Hawking said praising the Breakthrough Starshot project. Astronomers feel that there is a reasonable chance that an Earth-like planet exists in one of the habitable zones within the star system too.

Right now, the fastest spacecraft would take 30,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri. But Hawking also threw another doomsday prediction on the table.  At the 2017 Web Summit, held in Lisbon and attended by around 60,000 people, he warns that AI (artificial intelligence) is on the verge of replacing people. According to Hawking, humanity must be prepared to tackle artificial intelligence to stop robots replacing people. Hawking said the technology could transform every aspect of life in some good ways, but cautioned that intelligent machines pose new challenges. He said robots are already threatening millions of jobs but that this new revolution could be used to help society and for the good of the world, including alleviating poverty and disease.

“The rise of AI could be the worst or the best thing that has happened for humanity,” Hawking said via video link at the opening night of the summit on Monday. “We simply need to be aware of the dangers, identify them, employ the best possible practice and management and prepare for its consequences well in advance.”

Beijing Start-Up Now Offers Sex Dolls For Rent

It"s official: China"s sharing economy has reached its peak.

After shared workout pods, stools luxury cars, and, of course, bicycles, Shanghaist reports that a Beijing-based startup now has come up with a "mesmerizingly grotesque" idea: what if people could rent sex dolls through an app and return them after a period of time so that other silicone slammers could take advantage of the very same product?

And no, sadly this is not a joke.

The Chinese app, which is called Ta Qu, or "Touch" in English, was launched in 2015 as a platform for discussing issues about sex and sexuality. Over the past two years, it has pivoted or "(d)evolved" into a sex doll sharing app, which is now being tested in Beijing.  The Global Times reports that daily rentals cost 298 yuan, or less than $50, while users of the app can rent dolls for a week for the price of 1,298 yuan, after making an 8,000 yuan deposit.

The dolls then get delivered right to the user"s doorstep.

According to the Chinese outlet, there are currently five models to choose from: "Greek bikini model," "US Wonder Woman," "Korean housewife," "Russian teenager" and "Hong Kong car race cheerleader." Users can customize the dolls to their liking by picking out hair and eye color, as well as their outfits. 

Here is what $50 per day rents you:

For those asking the obvious question, the company states that it also has hygiene on its mind, as explained by their official policy.

"The dolls" lower parts are changed for every customer," reads the app. "Please remove the lower parts before returning. After the lower parts are cleaned, the doll can be used repeatedly."

The sex rental-sharing app is currently trying to make a name for itself in China"s booming adult toy market. On Weibo, where the company has more than 300,000 followers, it announced it would be giving out 20,000 free condoms as a way of promotion. It has also established several "pop-up" locations in Beijing to inform residents about their services, while even allowing people to pose for photos with their dolls while riding on the city"s subway.

Hoping to capitalize on China"s infamous gender imbalance, as well as its online gaming culture which breeds hordes of lonely young men, it remains to be seen whether Ta Qu will actually be able to translate the sharing economy model to sex dolls. But hey, at least it"s a better idea than shared umbrellas.

China Now Home to the World’s Largest Floating Solar Plant

In the beginning of June 2017, workers brought a solar energy plant online capable of producing 40 megawatts of power. That’s cool all by itself, but this solar “farm” floats on a manmade lake in China’s Anhui province, and it is the largest floating solar project in the world. [1]

The massive power plant was built by Sungrow Power Supply, and can produce enough energy to power 15,000 homes. The exact size of the operation has not been revealed, but it produces twice as much energy as the previous holder of the largest-floating-solar-plant title, which was launched by Xinyi Solar in 2016.

Building solar plants on bodies of water helps prevent agricultural land and terrestrial ecosystems from being developed for energy use – especially manmade lakes that are not ecologically sensitive. The water cools the electronics in the solar panels, which helps them work more efficiently.

Britain did the same thing for similar reasons in 2016 when it built a 23,000-panel floating solar farm on the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir near Heathrow Airport. The plant helps power the Thames Water treatment plant. The solar farm in Anhui province consists of 160,000 solar panels.

China is beginning to lead the world in clean energy investment, and the nation is projected to get 20% of its power consumption from low-emission energy by 2030. [2]

China Still Stricken by Toxic Air

China is plagued by toxic air pollution – smog is such a problem that the country expects to have more than 800,000 cases of lung cancer a year by 2020. The city of Beijing is currently the world’s top carbon emitter, with 2/3 of its electricity still fueled by coal. [3]

Source: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy

But the country has been working on innovative ways of fighting pollution. In 2018, Nanjing, China, is expected to start building Nanjing Green Towers, 2 buildings that will serve as vertical forests stylized with about 1,100 trees and more than 2,500 various shrubs and plants. The towers will absorb enough carbon dioxide to create 132 pounds of oxygen daily.

Though China’s floating solar energy plant is the largest of its type in the world, it pales in comparison to the land-locked Longyangxia Dam Solar Park, which hosts 4 million solar panels – together producing 850 megawatts of energy. And that project will eventually pale in comparison to a project in the Ningxia Autonomous Region, which will house more than 6 million solar panels and produce 2 gigawatts of power.

Sources:

[1] Smithsonian.com

[2] Mother Nature Network

[3] Phys.org

Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Crashing Monsanto’s Pesticide Party in Beijing

By: Scott C. Tips | 

NHF Slams the Global Pesticide Empire.

“A business that makes nothing but business is a poor business.”  – Henry Ford

They have been running amok for years, unchallenged. The Codex Alimentarius Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) is their playground and they know it. Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow, Bayer, and other agrochemical companies – cozily snuggled together at Codex as the disarmingly named, front group CropLife – sent no fewer than 39 representatives to the 49^th session of the CCPR meeting held in Beijing, China from April 24-29, 2017, to coerce, charm and bedazzle government regulators. And many of those regulators, especially the Australian and New Zealand ones, have long been seduced into believing that pesticides can be safely applied in near endless amounts and varieties. Or, they simply do not care about the ill-health effects of it all.

The Problem

That is why over 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used in the United States each and every year, while approximately 5.6 billion pounds are used worldwide.[1] In many developing countries, programs to control pesticide exposures are limited or non-existent. The agrochemical companies tell us these compounds are safe and are ensuring adequate food production to feed the World, but the facts tell us another story.

On January 24, 2017, the United Nations (UN) published a report in which it stated that although pesticide use has correlated with a rise in food production, it has had catastrophic impacts upon human health and the environment. The report went on to say that “[e]qually, increased food production has not succeeded in eliminating hunger worldwide. Reliance on hazardous pesticides is a short-term solution that undermines the rights to adequate food and health for present and future generations.” In fact, the UN blames pesticides for poisoning 200,000 people each year.[2] I think that figure is wildly conservative.[3]

Glyphosate tops the list of poisons applied every day to plants and soil that in turn destroy humans, animals, and our environment. Some 9.4 million tons of glyphosate have been spread on our fields. It is in our water table, our soil, crops, the food industry, and over 90% of Westerners have it in their bodies and even breastmilk. In fact, 33% of our bread contains glyphosate, the World’s biggest selling weed killer.[4] Despite industry assurances that glyphosate is “safe” and “environmentally friendly,” there is increasing awareness that glyphosate is nothing more than a replay of DDT with its similar pronouncements of “certified safe” and “completely harmless.”[5] In fact, some experts attribute tens of thousands of deaths to glyphosate usage.[6]

Worse, as Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo and NHF Vice-Chairman, has said, glyphosate is poisoning our soil, destroying our gut biome, and laying the foundation for destroying our ability to produce healthy foods for future generations.[7] Industry and regulators claim that glyphosate is safe for humans and animals because the means by which it kills weeds (the shikimate pathway) is not present in in humans and animals. However, the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, which dominate human and animal gut biomes. The glyphosate preferentially destroys beneficial gut bacteria, thereby allowing disease and inflammation to take hold.[8]

The Solution

The quick solution to the glyphosate problem is to do exactly what was finally done to the nasty pesticide DDT: Ban it. Glyphosate is a deadly and persistent poison that affects more than just plant and animal and pollinator life, it harms many different aspects of the environment as well. And yet glyphosate is not the only herbicide and pesticide that deserves our immediate attention.

That was apparent at the most recent CCPR meeting in Beijing, where the National Health Federation (NHF) made its appearance as the only consumer group present to counter the heavy industry influence favoring pesticides over people and world trade over health. There, a growing list of approved and soon-to-be-approved pesticides was before the Committee for its consideration, a list that included chlorpyrifos-methyl, buprofezin, teflubenzuron, saflufenacil, fluazifop-p-butyl, flupyrdifurone, and glyphosate.

The Meeting

As I scanned that long list preparatory to speaking out for NHF the very first day of the meeting, I knew from past experience at other Codex meetings that the poison pushers at this meeting would be Monsanto, Dow AgroChemical, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience, BASF, Adama, DuPont Crop Protection, and Nichino (all under the umbrella of CropLife or else sprinkled amongst various country delegations) as well as Australia, New Zealand, and some other industry-captured countries. On the other hand, NHF’s allies would be the European Union (EU) and Norway, with the Codex Secretariat being a very fair referee providing a level playing field for all delegates. In the event, this assessment proved to be exactly true.

On their part, the poison pushers had their own chance to assess NHF’s position during a telephonic meeting held earlier for the U.S. Codex delegation. NHF attended through its Executive Director Katherine Carroll, who was the only one of the many on the conference call to make a strong argument against the pesticides. This led to the comment, made by one of the attendees, that “NHF will probably speak up at the Codex meeting.” Indeed, we did.

Armed with the research provided by talented NHF researcher Arya Vrilya and Katherine Carroll,[9] I then spoke out over the next four days against chlorpyrifos-methyl, buprofezin, teflubenzuron, saflufenacil, fluazifop-p-butyl, flupyrdifurone, glyphosate, and more. Depending upon the pesticide, NHF argued that they were carcinogenic, killed bees and other vital insects as well as aquatic life, and damaged the environment, including the oceans in the case of glyphosate.

The EU delegates Marco Castellina and Veerle Vanheusden were quite good and made “reservations” for the record about the draft Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for numerous pesticides.  The Norway delegate tagged along for the ride with the EU, also stating its own reservations. However, know that when a country states a reservation about a particular pesticide, it is not opposing the advancement of that pesticide’s proposed MRLs to final adoption; rather, the country is simply stating that regardless of whether Codex adopts those MRLs or not, the “reserving” country will not be accepting that MRL within its country. At least European consumers will be protected from many of these dangerous pesticides.

I could tell that, compared to some of the other Codex committees, this one was accustomed to a rather sedate, cordial, and non-confrontational pace. CropLife, Australia, and the other members of the pro-poison crowd were obviously not used to having their dirty laundry questioned or even aired in committee. So, when NHF showed up as the only consumer and health-freedom group in attendance and began challenging these pesticides, calling them in the most un-PC language “poisons,” we were as welcome as a mother suddenly opening the door on a teenage slumber party.

On behalf of NHF members and consumers worldwide, I objected strenuously to the many pesticides already mentioned. These solitary objections in a roomful of hundreds of delegates reminded me of the same circumstances I had found myself in at the Food Additives Committee meeting in 2008 and the Contaminants Committee meeting in 2009 when I was the only one to speak against aluminum in food additives and melamine contamination levels in infant formula. A few years later and both committees had come around entirely to the NHF positions and adopted them.

NHF also supported the EU’s and Norway’s efforts to revise the so-called IESTI equations. IESTI stands for the “International Estimate of Short-Term Intake” and these mathematical equations are used to estimate one-day exposures to acutely toxic chemicals in foods.[10] The Europeans feel that the current IESTI equations used to set MRLs are not sufficiently protective enough of certain consumers and might result in short-term dietary exposure exceeding the Acute Reference Doses (ARfDs) even when the pesticide residue levels comply with the MRLs. NHF agrees, especially when one realizes that no one has ever really tested the synergistic and cumulative effects of these poisons nor considered that the safety studies submitted to regulatory agencies may be invalid.[11] Additionally, bio-individuality is never considered; individuals have differing abilities to properly detoxify poisons.  In the end, an electronic working group was established to explore changing the IESTI equations but it was quite plain that Australia, Kenya, and the United States, who are quite comfortable with the status quo, would simply play the “study it to death” game as they ran out the clock on any changes.

Mountains of Gold and Silver

Of course, CropLife and its captured regulators in Australia and New Zealand did all that they could during the meeting to advance pesticide MRLs that fail to protect consumers but do protect worldwide sales. The European countries seemed increasingly isolated in their efforts to protect consumers, while most member-country delegates either did not speak at all or only spoke once or twice.

The noble words of Chinese Vice-Minister of Agriculture Xinrong Yu, which had opened the session on the meeting’s first morning, had been all-too quickly forgotten by many delegates. Mr. Yu had commendably said, “We prefer the green hills of Earth rather than mountains of gold and silver.” And for those who might have missed the meaning of such poetry he was even more direct, “This is about consumer health.”

But where were the consumer advocates to stand beside NHF at this meeting and protect consumer health? There was the EU, Norway, and sometimes Chile; but notably absent were Consumers International (CI), the International Consumers Action Organization (IACFO), and the International Baby Formula Action Network (IBFAN), all so prominent at other Codex committees but not here. With glyphosate appearing routinely in the breast milk of nursing mothers around the World, one would think that IBFAN especially would cry out against that travesty here. Sadly and shockingly, there were no consumer organizations present to speak against the continued poisoning of our Planet, of our bodies, and of the bees except the National Health Federation, which has been speaking for health-interested individuals since 1955 and for the last two decades at Codex. Perhaps their budgets, as with NHF’s, does not permit them to attend every Codex meeting.

Vice-Minister Yu spoke no truer words when he mentioned the “mountains of gold and silver,” which, to my mind, accurately describes the goals of that $60-billion mega-corporation named Monsanto and others who would hide the truth about pesticide hazards. Perhaps that is why when the Report of this meeting was being read on the last day, April 29^th, CropLife and its minions Australia and New Zealand tried very hard to delete NHF’s comments from the Report.

The Report

The reading and correction of the Report on the final meeting day, Saturday, began routinely enough. Some words were added to the Report, some were stricken. The Codex Secretariat – led by Tom Heilandt, Gracia Brisco and Annamaria Bruno and charged with preparing the draft report – had done its usual thorough job. Then, the attacks began.

First, New Zealand complained that NHF’s comment against chlorpyrifos-methyl should not be included, arguing that NHF had spoken against another substance. But as both the Codex Secretariat and the FAO representative had carefully resolved any doubt during the meeting, New Zealand’s complaint went nowhere.

Next, CropLife wanted NHF’s comment about the ecotoxicity of teflubenzuron stricken because Codex is supposed to be about human health and not ecological health. This provided me with a perfect opportunity to argue to the delegates once again how ecotoxicity leads to ill health and even death in humans and animals. CropLife would have been better off keeping its mouth shut because both the Codex Secretariat and Chairman Xiongwu Qiao rejected CropLife’s stingy demand anyway.

However, emboldened by CropLife’s attempt to strike NHF’s comments about teflubenzuron, Australia launched its own cheap shot against NHF by demanding that all of NHF’s comments be stricken from the Report! In my 18 years of participating in global policy-setting at Codex, this level of desperation by a country threatened by NHF has never occurred. NHF was clearly making headway. Keep in mind that the Australian Codex Office is nothing more than a regional field office of the pesticide industry and you will understand why Australia would do this. In my experience, Australia has never properly represented the health interests of its own citizens.[12]

Always the gentleman, the U.S. delegate David J. Miller refused to jump on the bandwagon and more sensibly proposed some wording changes that would preserve NHF’s comments.[13] But Australia argued on.

It was really the most ridiculous waste of time as Australia and CropLife showed how petty and desperate they were. The Codex Secretariat and the Chairman, however, acted properly and are to be much commended when they flatly refused to tolerate these cheap shots and instead made sure that NHF’s seven reported comments remained in the final record.

Fulvic Acid

As counterpoint to the carnage wreaked by pesticides worldwide, organic fulvic acids are created by soil-based micro-organisms to make minerals and other nutrients assimilable by plants. Importantly, fulvic acid can and will neutralize glyphosate[14] and even the deadly pesticide Paraquat.[15]

Our soils are sick from greed-based, irresponsible agricultural practices, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, erosion, and mineral depletion, all of which stop or reduce adequate microbial activity in the soil, rendering them sick and/or dead and sterile. Sick soils make for sick plants and sick plants make for sick humans and animals. The addition of fulvic acid to our diets and our soils may provide both a stop-gap and medium-term solution to this pesticide plague.

In the Meantime the Planet Dies

The fight rages on. There are victories, such as in the 55 lawsuits filed against Monsanto in Northern California, where the court recently ordered release of Monsanto e-mails and other documents showing probable collusion between the company and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[16] And there are defeats, such as the recent decisions by the EU and Health Canada to extend approval of the weed killer Roundup® for another 15 years.[17]

One thing is certain, however, the truth about glyphosate and other dangerous pesticides is increasingly coming to light.  Its days on the market are numbered, no matter what Monsanto does. The only question is how much longer will people, animals, insects, fish, and our environment continue to be harmed and killed before these pesticides share the fate of DDT and are discarded? Even then we know full well contraband chemicals continue to be used globally. But I also know that NHF will not stop its efforts at Codex to halt the international trade in these poisons nor stop educating others of the dangers of listening to anything but firm science and common sense. After all, we too prefer the green hills of Earth to mountains of gold and silver.

© 2016 Scott C. Tips

---

[1] Michael C.R. Alavanja, “Pesticides Use and Exposure Extensive Worldwide,” Rev Environ Health, 2009 Oct–Dec; 24(4): 303-309, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946087/.

[2] Ryan Rifai, “UN: 200,000 die each year from pesticide poisoning,” Al-Jazeera, March 8, 2017, at http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/200000-die-year-pesticide-poisoning-170308140641105.html.

[3] Even the somewhat sexist Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) stated almost five years ago that “pesticides and harmful chemicals cause more than 900,000 deaths annually.” See WECF, “Pesticides and harmful chemicals cause more than 900,000 deaths annually,” WECF website, Oct. 10, 2012, at http://www.wecf.eu/english/articles/2012/10/pesticides-africa.php.

[4] David Noakes, “The Glyphosate Killer,” Health Freedom News, Summer 2016, Vol. 34, No. 2, at p. 30.

[5] Dr. Joseph Mercola, “Toxic Combo of Roundup and Fertilizers Blamed for Tens of Thousands of Deaths,” Mercola.com, April 8, 2014, at http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/04/08/roundup-fertilizer.aspx.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Sayer Ji, “Roundup Herbicide Linked to Overgrowth of Deadly Bacteria,” Health Freedom News, Spring 2013, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 12-13.

[8] Dr. Joseph Mercola, “Roundup and Glyphosate Toxicity Have Been Grossly Underestimated,” Mercola.com, July 30, 2013, at http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/30/glyphosate-toxicity.aspx.

[9] Also an important member of the National Health Federation delegation at CCPR.

[10] WHO-FAO, “International Estimated Short-Term Intake (IESTI),” June 13, 2013, at http://www.who.int/foodsafety/chem/guidance_for_IESTI_calculation.pdf.

[11] Tyler Durden, “Monsanto Colluded With EPA, Was Unable To Prove Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer, Unsealed Court Docs Reveal,” Zero Hedge, March 15, 2017, at http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-14/court-docs-prove-monsanto-collusion-epa-kill-cancer-study-admits-cant-say-roundup-do.

[12] See, e.g., Scott Tips, “The Great Australian Health Mystery,” July 21, 2013, at https://www.thenhf.com/codex/our-work-at-codex/3886-89the-great-australian-health-mystery-why-is-there-a-great-divide-between-the-australian-people-and-their-government-on-health-by-scott-c-tips.

[13] At the U.S. delegation meeting held the night before the regular CCPR meeting started on April 24^th, NHF heard one CropLife delegate after another pitch their poisons to Mr. Miller. Indeed, one CropLife man stayed after the meeting to ask for Miller’s help in pushing yet another new poison on the public. I overheard this and after the man left told Mr. Miller that NHF was very much concerned about the fact that he was only hearing one side of the issue, that except for NHF the public was not at the table, and that we expected him to remember that he represents the American public and not Big Ag. I also warned him that Monsanto had already been shown to be in collusion with the EPA and that we expected that would not be the case at this Codex meeting.  Mr. Miller politely listened during my monologue and then responded positively.  Nonetheless, it was clear from the U.S. interventions at CCPR that he was pushing the pesticide agenda.

[14] Matthew Kilby & Graeme Sait, “Successful Forest Farming, Nutrition is the Key,” Global Land Repair, undated, at http://www.globallandrepair.com.au/information/articles/successful-forest-farming/.

[15] Fisher, AM, Winterle, JS, & Mill, T, (1967) “Primary photochemical processes in photolysis mediated by humic substances,” in Zika RG & Cooper WJ (Editors), Photochemistry of environmental aquatic system, (ACS Symposium Series 327), Washington DC, American Chemical Society, pp. 141-156.

[16] Reynard Loki, “Has Monsanto Orchestrated A Massive Cancer Coverup? Unsealed Court Case Documents Point to a Scandal,” AlterNet, March 16, 2017, at http://www.alternet.org/environment/has-monsanto-orchestrated-massive-cancer-coverup-court-case-documents-point-troubling.

[17] Ciaran Moran, “Controversial weedkiller could be authorised for a further 15 years this week,” Farm Ireland, May 7, 2017, at http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/tillage/controversial-weedkiller-could-be-authorised-for-a-further-15-years-this-week-35648179.html; Health Canada, “Re-evaluation Decision RVD2017-01, Glyphosate,” April 28, 2017, at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_decisions/rvd2017-01/index-eng.php.

Shaping The Future: Moscow And Beijing's Multipolar World Order

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Stratgic Culture Foundation,

Once in a while, think tanks such as the Brookings Institute are able to deal with highly strategic and current issues. Often, the conferences held by such organizations are based on false pretences and copious banality, the sole intention being to undermine and downplay the efforts of strategic opponents of the US. Recently, the Brookings Institute"s International Strategy and Strategy Project held a lecture on May 9, 2017 where it invited Bobo Lo, an analyst at Lowy Institute for International Policy, to speak. The topic of the subject, extremely interesting to the author and mentioned in the past, is the strategic partnership between China and Russia.

The main assumption Bobo Lo starts with to define relations between Moscow and Beijing is that the two countries base their collaboration on convenience and a convergence of interests rather than on an alliance. He goes on to say that the major frictions in the relationship concern the fate that Putin and Xi hold for Europe, in particular for the European Union, in addition to differences of opinions surrounding the Chinese role in the Pacific. In the first case, Lo states that Russia wants to end the European project while China hopes for a strong and prosperous Europe. With regard to the situation in the Pacific, according to this report, Moscow wants a balance of power between powers without hegemonic domination being transferred from Washington to Beijing.

The only merit in Lo’s analysis is his identification of the United States as the major cause of the strategic proximity between Moscow and Beijing, certainly a hypothesis that is little questioned by US policy makers. Lo believes Washington"s obsession with China-Russia cooperation is counterproductive, though he also believes that the United States doesn’t actually possess capabilities to sabotage or delimit the many areas of cooperation between Beijing and Moscow.

What is missing in Lo’s analysis are two essential factors governing how Moscow and Beijing have structured their relationship. China and Russia have different tasks in ushering in their world order, namely, by preserving global stability through military and economic means. Their overall relationship of mutual cooperation goes beyond the region of Eurasia and focuses on the whole process of a sustainable globalization as well as on how to create an environment where everyone can prosper in a viable and sustainable way. Doing this entails a departure from the current belligerent and chaotic unipolar world order.

Moscow and Beijing: Security and Economy

Beijing has been the world"s economic engine for over two decades and shows no signs of slowing down, at least not too much. Moscow, contrary to western media propaganda, has returned to play a role not only on a regional scale but as a global power. Both of these paths of military and economic growth for China and Russia have set things on a collision course with the United States, the current global superpower that tends to dominate international relations with economic, political and military bullying thanks to a complicit media and corrupt politicians.

In the case of Beijing, the process of globalization has immensely enhanced the country, allowing the Asian giant to become the world"s factory, enabling Western countries to outsource to low-cost labor. In this process of economic growth, Beijing has over the years gone from being a simple paradise for low-cost outsourcing for private companies to being a global leader in investment and long-term projects. The dividends of years of wealth accumulation at the expense of Western nations has allowed Beijing to be more than just a strategic partner for other nations. China drives the process of globalization, as recently pointed out by Xi Jinping in Davos in a historic speech. China"s transition from a harmless partner of the West to regional power with enormous foreign economic investments place the country on a collision course with Washington. Inevitably, Beijing will become the Asian hegemon, something US policymakers have always guaranteed will not be tolerated.

The danger Washington sees is that of China emerging as a regional superpower that will call the shots in the Pacific, the most important region of the planet. The United States has many vested interests in the region and undeniably sees its future as the leader of the world order in jeopardy. Obama"s pivot to Asia was precisely for the purposes of containing China and limiting its economic power so as to attenuate Beijing’s ambitions.

Unsurprisingly, Washington"s concerns with Moscow relate to its resurgence in military capabilities. Russia is able to oppose certain objectives of the United States (see Ukraine or Syria) by military means. The possibility of the Kremlin limiting American influence in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Eurasia in general is cause for concern for American policy makers, who continue to fail to contain Russia and limit Moscow’s spheres of influence.

In this context, the strategic division of labor between Russia and China comes into play to ensure the stability of the Eurasian region as a whole; in Asia, in the Middle East and in Europe. To succeed in this task, Moscow has mainly assumed the military burden, shared with other friendly nations belonging to the affected areas. In the Middle East, for example, Tehran"s partnership with Moscow is viewed positively by Beijing, given its intention to stabilize the region and to eradicate the problem of terrorism, something about which nations like China and Russia are particularly concerned.

The influence of Islamist extremists in the Caucasian regions in Russia or in the autonomous region of Xinjiang in China are something that both Putin and Xi are aware can be exploited by opposing Western countries. In North Africa, Egypt has signed several contracts for the purchase of military vehicles from Moscow, as well as having bought the two Mistral ships from France, thereby relying on military supplies from Moscow. It is therefore not surprising that Moscow and Egypt cooperated with the situation in Libya and in North Africa in general.

In Southeast Asia, Moscow seeks to coordinate efforts to reach an agreement between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. The entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) of New Delhi and Islamabad (Tehran will be next), with the blessing of Beijing as the protagonist of the 2017 SCO meeting, is a keystone achievement and the right prism through which to observe the evolution of the region. Moscow is essentially acting as a mediator between the parties and is also able to engage with India in spite of the dominating presence of China. The ultimate goal of Moscow and Beijing is to eradicate the terrorist phenomenon in the Asian region with a view to what is happening in North Africa and the Middle East with Iran and Egypt.

Heading to a Multipolar World Order

The turning point in relations between Moscow and Beijing concerns the ability to engage third countries in military or economic ways, depending on these countries’ needs and objectives. Clearly in the military field it is Moscow that is leading, with arms sold to current and future partners and security cooperation (such as with ex-Soviet Central-Asian republics or in the Donbass) and targeted interventions if needed, as in Syria. Beijing, on the other hand, acts in a different way, focusing on the economic arena, in particular with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) at its center.

Initiatives such as the One Belt One Road (OBOR) and the Maritime Silk Road have the same strategic aim of the Russian military initiative, namely, ensuring the independence of the region from a geo-economic perspective, reaching win-win arrangements for all partners involved. Naturally, the win-win agreement does not mean that China wins and then wins again; rather, a series of bilateral concessions can come to satisfy all actors involved. An important example in this regard that explains the Sino-Russian partnership concerns the integration of the Eurasian Union with the Chinese Silk Road. The Russian concerns over the predominant status of the Chinese colossus in Central Asia have been assuaged by a number of solutions, such as the support of the OBOR infrastructure program to that of the Eurasian Union. Beijing is not interested in replacing Moscow"s leading role the post-Soviet nations in Central Asia but rather with providing significant energy and economic development to particularly underdeveloped nations that are in need of important economic investment, something only Beijing is able to guarantee.

The linking of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) with the One Belt One Road initiative guarantees Moscow a primary role in the transit of goods from east to west, thereby becoming the connecting point between China and Europe while expanding the role and function of the EEU. All participants in these initiatives have a unique opportunity to expand their economic condition through this whole range of connections. Beijing guarantees the money for troubled countries, and Moscow the security. The SCO will play a major role in reducing and preventing terrorist influence in the region, a prerequisite for the success of any projects. Also, the AIIB, and to some extent the BRICS Development Bank, will also have to step in and offer alternative economic guarantees to countries potentially involved in these projects, in order to free them from the existing international financial institutions.

One Belt One Road, and all the related projects, represent a unique occasion whereby all relevant players share common goals and benefits from such transformative geo-economic relationships. This security-economy relationship between Moscow and Beijing is  the heart of the evolution of the current world order, from the unipolar to the multipolar world. The US cannot oppose China on the economic front and Russia on the military front. It all comes down to how much China and Russia can continue to provide and guarantee economic and security umbrellas for the rest of the world.