Thread: Eurasia Topics

Oh do try and keep up FFS. That boat sailed two years ago when baldy orange cunto pulled out of the TPP.

Originally Posted by OhOh

An excellent article from Godfree Roberts,


Describing and illustrating the whole range of Eurasian organisations aimed at expanding a joint vision to the largest groupings of Vision, Manpower and Financing in the world, combining for a shared life.

Russia, China, and the European Peninsula


Russia, China, and the European Peninsula | The Vineyard of the Saker

Interesting read - especially the comment section.
Thanks.

China, Greece agree to push ahead with COSCO's Piraeus Port investment


China and Greece agreed on Monday to push ahead with a 600 million euros investment by COSCO Shipping into Greece’s largest port, Piraeus, as part of efforts to boost its role as a hub in rapidly growing trade between Asia and Europe

The agreement, part of 16 trade deals signed between Greece and China, came during an official visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Athens on Monday.

The two countries have drawn closer since 2009 when COSCO won a 35-year concession to upgrade and run container cargo piers in Piraeus (OLPr.AT). COSCO Shipping [601919.SS] bought a majority 51% stake in Piraeus port in 2016.

COSCO plans to turn Piraeus port into the biggest commercial harbor in Europe, spending about 600 million euros ($660 million) to boost operations, including mandatory investments of 300 million euros by 2022 which once concluded will allow it to acquire an additional 16% stake in the port.

But opposition from local communities prompted Greece to reject COSCO’s proposals for a new container terminal in Piraeus last month, saying that conditions “were not ripe” yet.

Xi met Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis on Monday and the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding, stating their mutual will to overcome any obstacles in the implementation of COSCO’s investment in Piraeus, a Greek government official said.

Both sides sought to play up Greece’s strategic location at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa, saying it could become a hub for channeling goods from the world’s second-largest economy and top exporter into Europe.

“We want to strengthen Piraeus’ transhipment role and further boost the throughput capacity of China’s fast sea-land link with Europe,” Xi said after meeting Mitsotakis.

Xi was set to visit COSCO’s facilities in Piraeus, Europe’s sixth biggest container port, later on Monday.

During a visit to Shanghai last week, Mitsotakis said he wanted Piraeus to become Europe’s No.1 port and that COSCO’s spending there could reach 1 billion euros.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) on Monday agreed to extend a 140 million euro ($154 million) loan to help COSCO with its investment plan in Piraeus.

Xi said that China also wanted to expand its investments in the energy, transportation and banking sectors.

China’s State Grid holds a minority stake in Greece’s power grid operator ADMIE. On Monday, State Grid expressed interest in taking part in ADMIE’s one billion euro scheme to build an undersea power cable to link the island of Crete to the mainland by 2023.

In the banking sector, Greece’s central bank Chief Yannis Stournaras met with executives of China’s Industrial and Commercial Bank.

The Bank of Greece has told the bank that it can set up a representative office in Greece.

Another Chinese bank, Bank of China Europe, set up a branch in Athens this month.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...KBN1XL1KC?il=0

Thieving fucking chinkies at it again.

Chinese national pleads guilty in U.S. court to stealing Phillips 66 trade secrets


By David Shepardson and Eric Beech, Reuters•November 13, 2019

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Chinese national pleaded guilty on Tuesday to stealing trade secrets from U.S. petroleum company Phillips 66 <PSX.N>, where he worked on the research and development of next generation battery technologies, the U.S. Justice Department said.

Hongjin Tan, 36, stole information regarding the manufacture of a "research and development downstream energy market product" that is worth more than $1 billion, the department said in a statement. The department identified the company where he worked as Phillips 66 in court documents filed in Oklahoma.

Tan was a staff scientist at Phillips 66 in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, from May 2017 through December 2018. The company said in December it was cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a probe involving a "former employee at our Bartlesville location," but declined to comment further on Tuesday.

An FBI affidavit said Phillips 66 called the agency in December 2018 to report the theft of trade secrets, around the same time that Tan told a former co-worker he was going back to China. Tan was arrested before he could return.
"Tan’s guilty plea continues to fill in the picture of China’s theft of American intellectual property," said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Demers.

"The Department launched its China Initiative to battle precisely the type of behavior reflected in today’s plea — illegal behavior that costs Americans their jobs — and we will continue to do so."

In his plea agreement, Tan admitted to intentionally copying and downloading research and development materials without authorization from his employer.

Tan will be sentenced on Feb. 12 and the Justice Department said it agreed a sentence of up to two years in prison would be appropriate as would $150,000 in restitution to Phillips 66.

Tan was responsible for research and development of the U.S. company’s battery program and developing battery technologies using its proprietary processes. Phillips 66 told the FBI in 2018 it had earned an estimated $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion from the unspecified technology.

The FBI found an employment agreement from a Chinese company that has developed production lines for lithium ion battery materials on Tan’s laptop.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-n...212857080.html

Damn Sneaky Chinks.
They're everywhere.

Originally Posted by HuangLao

Damn Sneaky Chinks.
They're everywhere.

As are the thieving fucking chinkies.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As are the thieving fucking chinkies.

As are .....

Germany's BASF starts building $10-billion petrochemical project in China

"German chemical giant BASF has begun construction of its $10-billion integrated petrochemicals project in China’s southern province of Guangdong, the company said in a statement on Saturday. The project based in the city of Zhanjiang will be China’s first wholly foreign-owned chemicals complex, for which a framework agreement was signed in January.

It will primarily produce engineering plastics and thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), and some petrochemical products widely used in automotive, electronics and new energy vehicles industries.

The project’s first phase is expected to be launched in 2022, with production capacity of 60,000 tonnes per year (tpy), taking BASF’s total capacity of engineering plastics and TPU to 290,000 tpy in the Asia-Pacific region.

The entire project is planned to be completed by 2030, the company said, making it the third-largest BASF site worldwide, following Ludwigshafen in Germany and Antwerp in Belgium.

BASF plans to employ a comprehensive smart manufacturing concept at the project, deploying automated packaging, high-tech control systems and automated guided vehicles, it added.

“(The project) will form a solid foundation for a world-class industrial cluster in Zhanjiang and establish stronger business connections between South China and other Asian countries,” Stephan Kothrade, a BASF regional official in China, said in the statement.

The project is “a signal showing China’s efforts of further opening-up are taking effect,” Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said, according to a central government website.

China would treat enterprises with all types of ownership structures, as well as domestic and foreign firms, equally and without discrimination, he added. "

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...KBN1XX06S?il=0

Australia gives $300 million loan to Papua New Guinea

"Australia on Saturday said it would provide a loan of $300 million as direct budget assistance for the Pacific island of Papua New Guinea and aid its economic reforms and government financing. Australia’s ties with PNG and other small, developing countries in the Pacific have gained significance as China expands its influence in a region dominated by the United States and its allies since World War Two.
Though rich in natural gas, crude oil, gold and copper, among other commodities, PNG has seen its revenues hit in recent years by a downturn in global commodity prices, and has increasingly turned to China for financing.
“This assistance reflects the Australian national interest in a stable and prosperous Papua New Guinea,” Alex Hawke, Australia’s minister for international development and the Pacific, said in a statement.
“It builds on our two countries’ strong economic partnership, which includes support for economic reform,” he said.
“It will also benefit Papua New Guinean and Australian businesses by increasing the availability of foreign exchange in the country and by supporting trade and investment.”
In August, PNG said it was seeking to refinance its entire government debt, turning to Beijing for help"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-p...KBN1XX03W?il=0


Heartening to see OZ citizens can afford this generous gesture.

"Australia recorded a capital and financial account deficit of 4163 AUD Million in the second quarter of 2019"


Australia Capital Flows



https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/capital-flows

No mention of the Interest Rate they will charge.

Originally Posted by OhOh

China would treat enterprises with all types of ownership structures, as well as domestic and foreign firms, equally and without discrimination, he added. "

Apart from the legalised spying on their cyber infrastructure and the usual thieving of their intellectual property of course.

Originally Posted by OhOh

No mention of the Interest Rate they will charge.

But then again, unlike the chinkies, they are not renowned for "debt diplomacy".

Russia dials back peace talks with Japan




"The Russia-Japan territorial disputes surged at a meeting of the foreign ministers of the two countries, Toshimitsu Motegi and Sergey Lavrov, at Nagoya, Japan, on November 22 on the sidelines of a G20 foreign ministers’ gathering. Lavrov publicly threw cold water on the Japanese spin that Tokyo is engaged in “persistent talks” with Russia on a peace treaty bringing the two countries’ World War 2 hostility to a formal ending.

Lavrov emphatically stated that any forward movement on a peace treaty will have to be within the ambit of the Russia-Japan 1956 joint declaration, which, as he put it, “clearly states that first Russia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty over all our lands, including those territories, are recognised, thus recognising the results of World War II, and then everything else will possibly be discussed.”

In plain terms, according to Lavrov, Moscow may consider discussing a peace treaty only after Tokyo unequivocally recognises Russian sovereignty over Kuril islands and territories that came under Russian control in the Far East during World War 2.

Japan’s stance, on the contrary, can never converge on that point. Wouldn’t Moscow have known it already? Of course, Lavrov has only reiterated a consistent Russian stance.

Tokyo has been baiting Moscow with the proposition that a peace treaty will open the door to large-scale investments by Japanese companies for the development of the Russian Far East (which is a national priority for the Kremlin.)

Tokyo has also been smart, projecting Russian President Vladimir Putin as a strong but pragmatic statesman who is willing to make territorial concessions to attract Japanese investments.

But it takes two to tango and up to a point Moscow acquiesced with the Japanese enthusiasm that the two countries could be settling the Kuril issue — although making territorial concessions will be a highly emotive issue for the Russian public opinion.

Moscow probably pinned hopes that a relaxed climate of relations might wean Tokyo away from the US strategic orbit — although the likelihood of Japan shaking off the US security umbrella will remain zero for the conceivable future.

At any rate, that tango has ended and realism prevails, with the regional security climate in the Far East visibly darkening with the recent US cruise missile tests and Pentagon’s plan to deploy new missiles in Japan following its exit from the INF Treaty (which had banned the intermediate-range missiles previously.)

Moscow is alert to the emergent threats to its strategic assets in the Russian Far East due to the US deployment. Importantly, Tokyo appears to be open to the proposed US missile deployments, which would further cement the US-Japan military alliance.

Unsurprisingly, Moscow has linked the regional security scenario to its territorial disputes with Japan. To quote Lavrov, “The military alliance with the US, of course, represents a problem when it comes to taking Russian-Japanese relations to another level. I will remind you that when the 1956 declaration was being coordinated, the USSR said back then that everything may be implemented, and this declaration may be fully implemented only in the context of discontinued US military presence on Japan’s territory.”

Lavrov added, “Japanese colleagues have received a list of Russia’s specific security concerns which emerge because of the increasing and strengthening Japanese-US military-political alliance. So our Japanese colleagues promised to react to those concerns. We will wait for their response and continue discussions.”

Lavrov also chose the G20 FMs’ forum at Nagoya to present the Russian concerns over the security climate in the Far East. He said, “As for the US behaviour in the world, including in the Asia-Pacific region, in its relations with Japan, the United States does not hesitate to publicly acknowledge that Russia and China are the main threat to it and that all its military alliances with Japan, Australia and the Republic of Korea will be built proceeding from these threats and challenges.

“But, of course, we pointed out at a meeting with the Japanese foreign minister that this ran counter to the assurances, which Japan gives us that the Japanese-US military and political alliance is not aimed against the Russian Federation.” (TASS)

Meanwhile, Russia is speeding up the construction of military dormitories on the Southern Kuril Islands. A spokesman for Russia’s Eastern Military District said this week that military personnel would settle into the dormitories on Iturup and Kunashir by the end of 2018 and that more dormitories would be built and commissioned in 2019.

The Eastern Military District, which was formed in 2010 under a presidential decree, is headquartered at Khabarovsk in Siberia near the Chinese border and is one of the four operational strategic commands of the Russian Armed Forces.

The new US missile deployments in the Far East are of common concern to Russia and China. In August, Russia and China sought a meeting of the UN Security Council over “statements by US officials on their plans to develop and deploy medium-range missiles”.

Last month, Putin disclosed that Moscow is helping China build a system to warn of ballistic missile launches. Putin said “this is a very serious thing that will radically enhance China’s defence capability”. Since the cold war, only the US and Russia have had such systems, which involve an array of ground-based radars and space satellites. The systems allow for early spotting of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

China will find Lavrov’s remarks at Nogaya to be very reassuring. It is a safe bet that the Russia-Japan normalisation will be an excruciatingly slow process, which in turn works fine for China in geopolitical terms. Lavrov also had a meeting with Wang Yi, Chinese Councilor and Foreign Minister, at Nogaya."

https://indianpunchline.com/russia-d...ks-with-japan/

The Kurils?

I mean are these actually islands that the Chinkies aren't claiming?

Fucking hell, the little fuckers dropped the ball there.

Why Thailand is Buying Russian Helicopters





"Beginning in 2011, the Kingdom of Thailand began replacing aging US helicopters not with newer US-built models, but with Russian and Italian systems instead.

This includes Russian Mi-17 medium twin-turbine transport helicopters and several AgustaWestland AW149’s and AW139’s (for transporting VIPs).According to a January 2019 article in Jane’s 360:

The RTA [Royal Thai Army] already operates five Mi-17V-5 platforms. In March 2008 the service ordered the first three such rotorcraft from Russia, which were delivered in March 2011, followed by the remaining two in November 2015 under a contract signed in July 2014.

The article also noted that 2 more have recently arrived in Thailand, bringing the total number up to 7:

The Royal Thai Army (RTA) has received two more Russian-made Mil Mi-17V-5 ‘Hip-H’ medium transport helicopters, an RTA source told Jane’s on 8 January.

Russia’s embassy in Bangkok would note during the delivery of several Mi-17’s in 2015 that:

This model of the famous Russian MI-17 helicopter can be used not only for transportation purposes but also in combat circumstances as well as for civil needs, in particular for rescue operations and forest fire extinguishing.

Indeed, far from just new toys resulting from a military spending spree as US-backed opposition figures in Thailand claim, Russian-built Mi-17s have already been seen in action, most notably during the spectacular cave rescue incident last year where 12 children and their football coach made it out of flooded caves alive.Mi-17’s could be seen bringing in heavy equipment and other supplies to aid in search and rescue operations, just as Russian representatives had promised they could. The rescued children were also in fact flown to safety on Thailand’s Mi-17’s.While these initial 7 Mi-17’s sound insignificant, it should be noted that Thailand operates only 12 US-built UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters. While it has a much larger number of much older US-built UH-1 and UH-212 Huey helicopters (78 and 51 respectively) only 20 UH-1’s are being modernised along with 48 UH-212’s.

Interestingly enough, the resources needed to upgrade Thailand’s aging US helicopter fleet was so extensive it prompted Thai policymakers to look into and eventually decide to begin transitioning over to Russia’s Mi-17, using funds from the upgrade programme to do so.Defense Industry Daily would report in its January 2019 article, “Thais Go Russian, Buy Mi-17 Helicopters – Now to Pay with Rubber,” that (my emphasis):

T
he Bangkok Post reports that Russia had offered to sell Mi-17s to Thailand at 168 million baht each in 2006, but the price has gone up. The first 3 helicopters will now cost 950 million baht, with another 50 million baht for pilot training and ground equipment (1 billion baht currently = $29.1 million). The other 3 helicopters will reportedly be paid for by funds diverted from the Huey upgrade program.

The article would also quote Thai representatives regarding cost and performance considerations over buying more US helicopters versus new Russian alternatives:

“We are buying three Mi-17 helicopters for the price of one Black Hawk. The Mi-17 can also carry more than 30 troops, while the Black Hawk could carry only 13 soldiers. These were the key factors behind the decision.”

This should hardly come as a surprise and is about more than just shifting geopolitics.

Even the US Agrees: Russian Helicopters are Better

The US itself in the midst of its now 2 decade-long occupation of Afghanistan even at one point began buying Russian Mi-17’s to equip the Afghan military to save money both in initial purchases and maintenance as well as in terms of training mechanics and pilots.The Washington Post in a 2013 article titled, “Congress fuming over U.S. purchase of Russian helicopters for Afghanistan,” would claim:

By the end of 2016, Afghanistan’s air force is due to have 86 Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters. Most of them will have been purchased by the United States from Rosoboronexport, the same state weapons exporter that continues to arm the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

The article also admits:

The Pentagon says that there is no better, cheaper helicopter than the Mi-17 to operate in Afghanistan’s desert expanses and high altitudes, and that it is the aircraft the Afghans know best.

Later, a purely politically-motivated transition toward US-built UH-60 Blackhawks precipitated predictable problems, as Defense News would report in its 2018 article, “Afghans are switching from Russian to US helicopters, but senators are concerned over the approach,” noting:

As the Afghans transition from the Mi-17 to the UH-60, several operational challenges have cropped up regarding the Black Hawk’s capability related to the Mi-17.

The IG report said that the Black Hawk does not have the lift capacity comparable to Mi-17s and is unable to take on some of the larger cargo an Mi-17 carries, which requires two UH-60s to carry the load of one Mi-17.

Additionally, the Black Hawks can’t fly at the same high elevations as an Mi-17. As a result, the former cannot operate in remote areas of the country.

UH-60 Blackhawks cost 2-3 times as much as Mi-17’s, with less lift and a much smaller passenger and cargo capacity while being unable to perform across the same extensive environments as Mi-17’s.For any policymaker, cost and performance considerations alone are enough to make a case for “going Russian.”While political considerations in Washington have directed policy toward wasting money on inferior technology, in capitals elsewhere around the globe chaffing under US interference in their internal affairs and the US’ disruptive foreign policy in general, bolstering Russian industry (or China’s for that matter) at Washington’s expense can only help tip the balance of global power further in favour of a more equitable multipolar world.Considering the success of Russia’s Mi-17, with even Washington itself having at one point bought them in great quantities, it should be no surprise that nations particularly in Asia are receptive to greater collaboration with Russian helicopter manufacturers.Early in 2019, Russian Helicopters carried out a demonstration in Thailand and other Southeast Asian states to showcase their rotary-wing aircraft for civilian uses. The Bangkok Post in its article, “Russian Helicopters begins Asian offensive,” would note:

The demonstration is part of Russian Helicopter’s business strategy to break into the civil aviation market in Southeast Asia and China. The company already has many military contracts in the region, but would like to expand into civilian uses like medical emergencies, policing and VIP transport.

The article also notes that the company is already in the process of delivering several Ka-32A11BC helicopters (used for search and rescue) to Thailand.Also earlier this year, it was reported that Russian Helicopters was interested in building a factory in Thailand. The Bangkok Post in its article, “Russian Helicopters keen on setting up Thai plant,” would report:

Russian Helicopters is seeking to form a joint venture with a Thai company to enter the country’s flagship Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC), aiming to establish production of helicopter parts for aviation companies.

All of this is just one part of Russia’s wider interest in investing in and partnering with Thailand and other nations in the region.

Not Just Selling Helicopters, But Building Enduring Relations

It should be noted that the purchase of complex systems like aircraft or naval vessels entails more than just the transfer of money and equipment.It also requires closer ties between the two nations involved, with Russia now committed to training Thai pilots and mechanics in how to operate and maintain their growing collection of Russian aircraft. With such collaboration comes closer ties in general and helps further reduce Thailand’s dependence on and vulnerability to US interests, influence and interference.

It also aids in doing so, however incrementally, for the rest of Southeast Asia.A similar process is taking place between Thailand and China where Thailand is replacing the vast majority of its aging US armoured vehicles with modern Chinese alternatives as well as the purchase of several significant naval vessels including the Kingdom’s first modern submarine.Because Russia and China create superior technology at a fraction of the cost of US alternatives, nations are faced with an easy, commonsense decision to make.

While US pressure in the past was often able to coerce nations into making decisions contra to their best interests, this is no longer the case. Thus we are witnessing the tipping off of irreversible momentum against Washington’s favour.It is not as if American engineers are incapable of creating comparable technology at competitive costs, it is a concentrated collection of special interests who monopolise the required physical and political resource, preventing them from doing so, all in pursuit of unrealistic ambitions of global hegemony.

The desire to rule over the world’s nations rather than fairly do business among them appears to be costing America the ability to do either.Until this part of the equation is solved in the United States, Russian helicopters and likely a wider range of technology and services across other industries, hold a bright future across Eurasia, including Southeast Asia and particularly in Thailand."

https://journal-neo.org/2019/11/16/why-thailand-is-buying-russian-helicopters/


https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...copters-05140/

Ali Rabiei announced Iranian President Hassan Rouhani had sent a series of letters to the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in an effort to promote peace and stability in the region.

HAHAHAHA that's funny.

Obviously hoping they could preempt the Manama Dialogue. Bit late though.

Saudi State Minister for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir blamed Iran’s leadership of treading the path of darkness, death and destruction.

“The region is currently witnessing two competing visions: the vision of light and the vision of darkness,” he said.

“The vision of light seeks development, better living standards, women and youth empowerment, technology … This is what we have been doing in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. The vision of darkness is based on sectarianism and division, destruction and death, and that is exactly what Iran has been pursuing in the Middle East.”

Latest Negotiations on Issues of Trade between USA and PRC

"From 10 to 11 October, the 13th round of negotiations on issues currently plaguing the bilateral trade and economic ties between the United States and China took place in Washington. The Chinese delegation was headed by Liu He, the Vice-Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China and a current member of the Politburo of PRC’s Communist Party, while the US one by U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. At the end of the negotiations, President Donald Trump invited Liu He for a meeting.

It should be noted that the enormous US trade deficit with China has become the most pressing and acute issue plaguing their bilateral ties. Rounding off the figures, the statistics are as follows: annually, the United States sells the PRC $100 billion worth of goods and services, and purchases from it $500 billion worth.If we are to ignore the causes of the unfortunate situation that Washington finds itself in, it is worth highlighting a key point: the current state of affairs goes against President Donald Trump’s strategy, neatly summed up by his rallying cry “America First”. And the fact that the annual U.S. international trade deficit is $800 billion (with half of it accounted for by that with China as mentioned earlier) makes Trump’s slogan look like a bad joke.Clearly, a supporter of big business such as Donald Trump is not a fan of such humor. After a number of failed attempts to resolve the issue via the negotiations that had started in the summer of 2018, tariffs were imposed on half of Chinese imports into the United States in the autumn of the same year. An intention was also expressed to take similar measures with respect to the second half if the issue, at hand, was not resolved in the course of the negotiations within a “reasonable time-frame”.

Naturally, China retaliated in kind. As a result, in this “eye for an eye” manner, the trade war between the USA and China began, and became one of the key reasons behind the decreasing pace of economic growth (particularly, in recent months of this year) of both nations and other countries of the world. In addition, in response to the current situation, various respected institutions (as, for instance, the leadership of International Monetary Fund, IMF) issued public appeals to the parties to the conflict urging them to end it as soon as possible.However, the initial negotiating positions of both sides are hard to reconcile. Ideally, Donald Trump needs everything here and now (and to the very maximum), and the urgency is especially acute now that the presidential race has begun. Hence, he is only willing to conduct negotiations with respect to the second half of the Chinese imports into the United States.

On the other hand, for various reasons (including those having to do with PRC’s political standing), first and foremost, limiting the scope of the negotiations in this manner is unacceptable for China, and secondly, it is probably de facto impossible to quickly resolve the trade imbalance with the United States. After all, the deficit has built up over decades, with the USA directly contributing to it by outsourcing manufacturing abroad to countries with cheaper costs of labor.This is one of the reasons why a number of the largest U.S. companies are unhappy about the rise in tensions between their homeland and China. The issue is particularly problematic for firms located on the Pacific coast, first and foremost, in California.

China also happens to be one of the largest markets for selling goods (including agricultural products), made in the United States. Meanwhile, PRC’s measures in response to the tariffs have had an effect on firstly the US farmers. Donald Trump is trying to stem their discontent by looking for viable alternative markets for agricultural products.

The current mood within the U.S. business circles regarding the future of the U.S. relationship with the PRC was clearly reflected in the fact that American businesses “took up the largest exhibition area” at the 2nd China International Import Expo (CIIE), which lasted a week and was held in Shanghai at the beginning of November.The CIIE itself, which will be held annually, is one of the key events for the PRC’s leadership aimed to show the world China’s willingness to open up its economy and allow a much greater presence of foreign businesses in the nation.

During the opening speech at the start of the 2nd CIIE, the Chinese leader stressed the importance of multilateralism (not only on an economic level) behind the policy course to lower tariff barriers on foreign goods and investments entering the Chinese market. General Secretary Xi Jinping announced that, in the next fifteen years, the PRC would purchase different foreign products and services, worth $30 and $10 trillion, respectively.

These impressive figures must have “spurred on the hearts” of the 2nd CIIE participants “to beat faster”. At the very first international exhibition, there were already 172 countries and 3,600 companies in attendance. By November 2019, the number of such businesses had risen three-fold.The presence of Boeing in the U.S. Pavilion was readily noticeable. In an interview with a local newspaper, Sherry Carbary, the Vice President for Flight Services and the President of Boeing China, said that “even though Boeing had had no sales in China for the past two years”, “the Chinese market would soon replace the US as Boeing’s largest”.

The heads of one of the leading manufacturers of electric vehicles, Tesla, share her opinion. The company’s latest Shanghai Gigafactory is now “ready for production”. It appears that Tesla is hoping to stop running at a loss and become profitable by expanding its production facilities abroad (not only in China but Germany too).
Donald Trump cannot afford to ignore such sentiments among U.S. manufacturers and farmers. It is unlikely that the American President hopes to achieve the goals to their fullest extent (i.e. everything here and now) during the negotiations, instead he is clearly keen on reaching a more or less acceptable compromise with the PRC.It was Donald Trump who expressed optimism about the results of the 13th round of negotiations within the first three weeks after they had ended. There was talk about substantial progress made towards preparing the outcome document and the possibility of a meeting with PRC’s General Secretary Xi Jinping as soon as the end of November.

However, by the beginning of November, the level of optimism expressed in such statements noticeably decreased. During his fairly muddled speech on 13 November, Donald Trump said that although the “negotiators were “close” to a “phase one trade deal”, “he did not announce a date and a time for a signing ceremony”.

It is worth noting that in autumn of this year, Donald Trump announced a deadline (15 December) for completing negotiations on the document that would in one way or another resolve the issues plaguing bilateral trade. In the absence of such an agreement by the aforementioned date, tariffs on the second half of Chinese imports into the United States will be raised.The author is beginning to have serious doubts about the possibility of such a deal being struck even by the end of this year. Still, in such a scenario, it is far from certain that the threats made by the American President will turn into reality.

Finally, it is not at all surprising that once the 13th round of negotiations finished, the role of politics in the process became increasingly obvious, after all only on the rarest of occasions can it be separated from that of economic factors without distorting the situation we are trying to make sense of. Naturally, Washington is fully aware that the negotiations to try and resolve differences in the trade and economic sphere involve their key geopolitical opponent.

At the end of October and the beginning of November, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reminded his audiences about the aforementioned factor during his speeches in Washington D.C. (at the Hudson Institute) and Berlin. He had travelled to Germany in order to commemorate the 30th anniversary of an event, commonly referred to in the West as the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

On both occasions, the Secretary of State used rhetorical expressions (such as “new authoritarianism”) typically employed to describe people or nations in a negative light. And, at present, one such key opponents of Washington is China (which is being assisted by the Russian Federation). U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence have also talked about the position of and role of modern China in the world in a similar manner. It was the first time that the PRC was described as the main threat to NATO at such high levels.

Lastly, on 14 November, the Secretary General of NATO joined the operation casually referred to as “the hunt for the bear” (i.e. the President of the United States). And in the presence of the former, the key target of this operation talked about the need to strengthen the military alliance. Such statements are in direct contradiction to his own references to NATO made during the first presidential campaign, and to the aforementioned rallying cry regarding the U.S. future.

For now, it is difficult to say what role various political factors will have on the clearly beneficial (from a long-term strategic perspective) aim of resolving the issues plaguing trade and economic relations between the United States and China.Out of all these factors, continuing to support (clearly such assistance should have ended a long time ago) the only remaining “dinosaur” of the Cold War appears to be the least rational.

It seems that China will probably become the latest excuse so as not to “disconnect the prehistoric animal from life support”.

https://journal-neo.org/2019/11/24/l...n-usa-and-prc/

How the US is Losing Itself out in the ASEAN






"While the US continues to target China for its assertive policies in the South China Sea, the US still continues to lose itself out in the ASEAN region. This is a result not so much of the way the Chinese are expanding their political and economic reach, but mainly an outcome of the US’ own handling of the region and its failure to meet the ASEAN countries’ expectations. In the latest ASEAN summit, the US president’s conspicuous absence not only reminded the ASEAN members of the way the US, under the Trump administration, is not only distancing itself from them, but also making no serious efforts to do what the ASEAN countries once hoped the US to do vis-à-vis China: practical containment. The widespread dissatisfaction, evidently expressed through the ASEAN members’ boycott of a US Summit staged at the event overseen by Trump’s national security advisor Robert O’Brien. Brien was certainly seen as a diplomatic representation too junior to preside over a meeting attended by heads of state.

Thus, despite Brien’s diplomatic onslaught on China regarding the latter’s so-called ‘aggressive policies’ in the South China Sea region, no intra-grouping discussion regarding this issue took place. In fact, the ASEAN countries’ refusal to send their respective national leaders to the annual ASEAN-US summit showed that these countries weren’t after all deeply eager to stay attached to the US policies. The US, on the contrary, took the absence of the national leaders as a ‘conspiracy’ and a deliberately designed ‘international effort to embarrass’ the president of the US (who wasn’t after all present in the summit in the first place and perhaps found solace in sending someone not even formally a member of his cabinet).

For the ASEAN countries, Trump’s neglect of the summit was nothing but a clear manifestation of his “America First” policy whereby he prefers to deal with countries on bi-lateral rather than multi-lateral terms and avoids settings that promote regional connectivity. This has already done enough damage to the US ability to unite the ASEAN countries as a “bloc” against China, forcing even some of them, if not all, to refuse to follow a policy that involves taking sides.

The Philippines’ example is a true reflection of the changing dynamics of the US-ASEAN and China-ASEAN growing ties. The Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who serves as the current ASEAN-China country coordinator, simply called for mutual “self-restraint” in the South China Sea and did not endorse the US call for action against increasing Chinese ‘aggression’ in the region. While it may be said that The Philippines leader is largely a pro-China man, his position has already made the ASEAN an internally divided house. This is despite the fact that The Philippines is one country with one of the highest stakes in the South China Sea region.

Furthermore, The Philippines is not the only country from within the ASEAN to lean towards China and even evolve its ties into a strategic-partnership. Ever since January 2019, reports have been appearing in the international media about China’s acquisition of a naval base in Cambodia. While there is no official confirmation about this base, the fact remains that China is already the largest investor in Cambodia and has pumped billions into the economy. What also adds to Cambodia’s logic of growing relations with the Chinese is a strong perception in Cambodia regarding a running US-sponsored effort to overthrow Hun Sen, the strongman leader who has been in power for more than three decades now. Phnom Penh also cancelled annual joint military exercises with the US ahead of an anti-democratic crackdown that targeted American interests in the country.

A growing US neglect of the ASEAN as a bloc has already created enough space for the Chinese to expand their political and economic reach. On the one hand, Trump’s preference for bi-lateral ties has distanced some countries, and on the other, it has allowed China to negotiate a separate code of conduct with the ASEAN countries regarding the South China Sea region. While the US hopes to impose its influence on Code of Conduct negotiations by ratcheting up its presence in the South China Sea, such as increasing the number of warships sailing in the sea, Trump’s neglect of the summit and the ASEAN countries’ own assertiveness plus a growing realisation against picking sides is likely to make things more difficult for the US.

For China, these things are working. China has been the largest trading partner of ASEAN for 10 consecutive years. In 2018, bilateral trade between China and ASEAN hit US$580 billion and mutual investment reached over US$200 billion. As against this, the US trade with ASEAN was US$271 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2018. Trade in services with ASEAN countries (exports and imports) totaled US$62 billion in 2018. Exports were US$37 billion; Services imports were $25 billion.

A decline in mutual economic activity coupled with a growing disinterest in the region shows that the geo-political importance has already watered-down significantly for the US due to a ‘benign neglect’ that can hardly be attributed to any ‘conspiracy’ against the US. China, obviously, stands to gain."

https://journal-neo.org/2019/11/23/h...-in-the-asean/

Good old baldy, he doesn't fuck up things by half, does he?

Iran, Russia, China, Syria and Hezbollah are the US’s enemies in Lebanon

By Elijah J. Magnier: @ejmalrai

"The testimony of former US Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to Lebanon, Jeffery Feltman to the US Congress created a storm in a teacup in Lebanon, even though in the US administration he no longer holds any official position. Feltman, who works for The Bookings Institution, presented his detailed knowledge based on close attention to events in Lebanon, particularly in the current context of the ongoing protests that hit that country. However, he falls short of fully understanding the situation. He expressed some wishful thinking in his reading of the events in Lebanon. He showed the complexity of the situation in the country, and advised Congress on how to “defeat Hezbollah and Iran in Lebanon” and how to “keep Syria, Russia and China from gaining a foothold in Lebanon”. However, his misreading of local dynamics and the power of Hezbollah actually serve Lebanon positively but only if, Congress gives credit to his words.

It is not unusual for the “Axis of the Resistance” (Iran, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Hezbollah and Yemen) to allow misunderstandings and underestimations of its power to be pronounced without reaction or rectification. Iran, for instance, uses this method to show how hurtful are some of the procedures aimed at curbing its power, magnifying the effects, so that actors, particularly if they are a superpower like the US, believe its sanctions or methods are effective. President Donald Trump believed the Iranian regime would fall within months due to his most severe sanctions. And yet, the Iranian government is not hiding the effect of sanctions on its economy but instead is far from declaring its defeat, producing its yearly non-oil dependent budget, and is adapting to Trump’s economic punishment.

This approach – in the Axis of the resistance’ understanding – convinces the actors to avoid adding more harsh measures and may satisfy the US administration or its Middle Eastern partners, blurring the reality. Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, for instance, has been bragging about his efficiency in intercepting all weapon supplies to Hezbollah by bombing shipments travelling from Syria to Lebanon. Yet he is the first to acknowledge that Hezbollah has received the latest precision and most accurate missiles from Iran, via Syria, adding lethal firepower to its 150,000 missiles and arsenal.

During his testimony, the former US diplomat praised and magnified the role of the Lebanese Army in defeating al-Qaeda and the “Islamic State” on the borders between Lebanon and Syria. His view (even if somewhat distant from reality) might serve to soften the harsh stance of the US that has aimed in recent years to impoverish Lebanon. But it was Hezbollah that defeated the jihadists, and not the “orphan” 12 hellfire missiles conditionally given by the US to the army and the army’s limited participation in occupying spots cleared of Jihadists by Hezbollah during its advance. The Lebanese Army losses were caused by a vehicle stepping on a sideroad mine left behind by the jihadists.

If the US administration believed Hezbollah could be defeated by the Lebanese Army, and that a healthy Lebanon is necessary to curb Hezbollah’s influence, that could only have positive repercussions for the country. However, Feltman’s wishful thinking is in a different category from the US plans to impose further sanctions on Lebanon. Not because there are within the US decision-makers who are cleverer than Feltman, but because the Trump administration is largely manipulated by Israel’s desire to bring Lebanon to its knees and in consequence impose more sanctions on the Shia and on Christians, all classified as Hezbollah’s allies.



Feltman erroneously claimed that the “civil war is the expression of Iran’s influence”. His analysis of Hezbollah and Iran’s influence is off track. Iran – which forces stepped in Lebanon following the Israeli invasion in 1982 and not when the civil war flared up in 1975 – wants Lebanon and Iraq to be stable because any civil war will distract Iran’s partners from the main objectives: solidarity among all members of the Axis of the resistance to stand against their common enemies, deterrence against Israel, and support for the Palestinian cause.

Feltman, a knowledgeable former US diplomat (by contrast with other officials within the US administration) still wrongly believes Syrian hegemony is a possible scenario to be repeated in Lebanon. The relationship between Syria and its allies in Lebanon, particularly Hezbollah, has changed. For many years now President Bashar al-Assad is no longer directly engaged in Lebanese politics, although Lebanon remains very important for Syria due to security, commercial and neighbourhood factors. Although there are many Lebanese still visiting Damascus, however, Assad understands that Lebanese politicians are divided and that the “Axis of the resistance” is strong enough to prevent hostile behaviour against Syria.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah never controlled or enjoyed the support of all the Shia. Even its close partner the Amal movement – although not unfriendly to Hezbollah – competes with Hezbollah for influence in the south of Lebanon and within all institutional positions allocated for Shia. There are many Lebanese Shia who are declared enemies of Hezbollah. This phenomenon is not widespread but not uncommon. Still, Hezbollah has the support of the majority of the Shia due to its protection to its allies among the Christian minorities from jihadists, its deterrent role against Israel’s aggression and plans to annex more Lebanese (land and water) territory.

Protestors in Lebanon have hit the streets for less than 40 days to protest against poor public services, the mismanagement of economic resources and the corruption of all political leaders currently in power. However, the crisis deepened when it became clear that no government will be formed anytime soon. Caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri wants to accommodate the US wish to exclude Hezbollah and its Christian partner the “National Patriotic Movement” in a technocrat cabinet, and have a free hand in appointing any minister in the future government – even though he controls only 21 out of 128 MPs while his political opponents hold the majority of the Parliamentary seats (more than half) – and who refuse to be excluded.

Hariri is not exempt from corruption but is trying to ride the horse of reforms. His political opponents insist on re-nominating him as Prime Minister so that he will assume responsibility for corruption during his father’s rule before him and his handling of the many governments he led after his father’s assassination. His supporters were pushed on the streets to contribute by closing main roads in Lebanon: a signal aiming to put pressure but which contributed to crippling the country.

In less than two months of a road closure, Lebanon has lost around $2 billion worth of economic exchange and commerce. Its currency has devaluated 33% to the dollar in the black market.



Only in the last week, the Lebanese Army took the decision to keep all main roads open, avoiding a possible escalation of the situation. The Shia cities and main axis linking Beirut to the south of Lebanon and to the Bekaa Valley had been closed for many days. Such a situation was just about to trigger a reaction that could have taken the country to a dangerous state.

Lebanon is on the verge of total bankruptcy. There is no longer any trust in the Lebanese Lira, nor in the banking system. The US (is withholding for now) support – unrelated to its financial crisis – for the Lebanese Army in the amount of $105 million dollars doesn’t even cover a small part of the country’s $85 billion dollars deficit.

Only China and Russia, the countries Feltman fears most, can bring financial hope to Lebanon. China has invested in Haifa harbour with a 25-year contract to expand its shipping capability, and in modernizing electricity power plants and public transport in Israel, spending $12.19 billion between 2005 and 2019.

China has signed a contract with Iraq to develop and complete 80 oil wells in the giant Majnoon Basra oil field at $54 million and another contract to drill 43 oil wells at $255 million to increase oil production rates to 400,000 barrels per day. It has signed a contract of $1.39 billion for housing, education and medical care for projects in Najaf, Karbalaa and Basra. The trade volume between Iraq and China surpassed $30 billion in 2017. China imports $20 billions of crude oil from Iraq every year, with a 10% increase in trade, rising every year.

Unlike Israel, the US’s top partner, Lebanese pro-US politicians are very sensitive about hurting Washington and therefore reject any Russian donation or important economic deals with China even though they could boost the crumbling Lebanese economy.

The fragility of the political and economic equilibrium in Lebanon contains danger signals which are a warning of possible financial disintegration. The US administration behaves like a bull in a china shop in the Middle East, imposing sanctions indiscriminately but obtaining little in return. Its aggressive and arrogant decisions are making enemies for Trump and feeding the US’s misunderstanding of Middle Eastern dynamics. Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria are the most obvious examples of where the Trump administration is “shooting in the water” and thereby significantly contributing to the success of Iran and its allies.

Now Trump’s “policies”–identified as “the biggest source of global instability” – are making room for Russia and China to be present in more and more countries of the Middle East."

https://ejmagnier.com/2019/11/25/ira...es-in-lebanon/

Iran, Russia, China, Syria and Hezbollah are the US’s enemies in Lebanon

They're the US's enemies everywhere you dumbass.

Iran, Russia, China, Syria and Hezbollah are the US’s enemies in Lebanon

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They're the US's enemies everywhere you dumbass.

How generous - and clever - from USA to have themselves pulled up in the space by vehicles of their enemy (Russia)

And being dependent on their daily consumers' demands by supplies from their another enemy and major creditor (China)...

The explosion in Lebanon has been delayed: until when?



By Elijah J. Magnier: @ejmalrai


"Europe is concerned about the Lebanese political crisis and its potential spillover consequences in case of a civil confrontation. Even if the European states do not have differing strategic objectives in Lebanon from the US, a civil war will affect Europe directly, as refugees will be flocking from the neighbouring continent.

Reaching an agreement over a new government to prevent further unrest is proving difficult. Sources in Beirut believe it may take several months to form a new government, as was the case in forming the last government. Some wonder if it might not be better to wait for the results of the US elections before forming a new government. Or perhaps a new government will only emerge after a major security event, like the assassination of the late Prime Minister Rafic Hariri which triggered a political tsunami in the country. All indications on the ground point to the prospect of a civilian confrontation arising from the absence of a robust central government that can take in hand the security of the country. Can Lebanon avoid a civil confrontation?

The closure of the main roads and the “deliberate” incompetence and inaction of the security forces – due to US requests to tolerate the closure of main axes linking Lebanon with the capital – is no longer a surprising behaviour.

The main roads now closed have been carefully selected: closed are the roads linking the south of Lebanon to Beirut and linking Baalbek and the road to Damascus with the capital Beirut. These areas are mainly inhabited and used by Shia. The roads are being blocked mainly in certain sectarian areas controlled by Sunni supporters of the caretaker Sunni Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his Druse ally Walid Joumblat. The closure of other roads in the Christian dominated Dbayeh by the pro-US Christian leader Samir Geagea, leader of the “Lebanese Forces”, and in Tripoli seem to be kind of diversions of attention from the main goal: challenging Hezbollah.

Sources in Beirut believe the objective is to exasperate the Shia who represent the society that protects Hezbollah. The goal is to force the organisation into the streets. Hezbollah is aware of this and is trying to avoid responding to provocations. The closure of these roads is an invitation to Hezbollah to take the situation in hand and direct its weapon against other Lebanese citizens, as indeed happened on the 5^th of May 2008.

In 2008, Druse minister Marwan Hamadé – directed by Walid Joumblat – and pro-US Prime Minister Fouad Siniora asked Hezbollah to cut its fibreoptic private communication system linking all corners of the country. Israel never ceased to monitor the Hezbollah cable that, due to its high-security system and regular control, had managed to neutralise all Israeli tapping devices attached to it by Israeli Special forces during their infiltration to Lebanon for this exact purpose. An effort was made by the Lebanese government in May 2008 to cut the cable to break through Hezbollah’s high-security system, the key to its command and control in time of peace and especially in time of war. This insistent attempt – despite repeated warnings – provoked two days later a demonstration of force by Hezbollah occupying the entire capital in a few hours with no serious victims. Lebanese pro-US armed mercenaries who gathered and hid in Beirut to trigger a civil war on this day, anticipating Hezbollah’s possible reaction, were neutralised in no time despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent on their supposed readiness for war against Hezbollah in the streets of Beirut.

Today, the goal is to see Hezbollah controlling the streets and arming anti-government Syrians and Lebanese. The goal is to take the Lebanon issue to the United Nations so as to justify a foreign intervention. The aim is not to see Hezbollah defeated by the initial clashes; the firepower, training and military organisation of Hezbollah cannot be defeated by enthusiastic mercenaries and locals. The aim is to deprive Hezbollah of its legitimacy and pay a heavy price for its “unforgivable” victories in Syria and Iraq and its support to the Palestinians and the Yemeni.

Lebanon’s financial problems are not the primary issue. In Congressional testimony, the former US Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to Lebanon, Jeffery Feltman, told the US Congress that “Lebanon’s entire external debt (around $35 billion) is in line with the estimates of what Saudi Arabia is bleeding every year in pursuing a war in Yemen ($25-$40 billion).”

Regional and international financial support to Lebanon will be injected with one purpose: to trigger a civil war in the hope of defeating Hezbollah in the long term. This might also save Israel from a severe political crisis by provoking a war against Lebanon rather than an internal conflict among Israelis, as seems possible after two failed attempts to form a government.



Most Lebanese are aware of the sensitive and critical situation in the country. Most fear a civil war, particularly in view of the behaviour of the Lebanese Army and other security forces who are now standing idle and yet refusing to keep all roads open. These actions by the security forces are greatly contributing to the possibility of an internal conflict.

Sincere protestors with only a domestic agenda have managed to achieve miracles by crossing all sectarian boundaries and carrying one flag: an end to corruption and associated poverty and the return of stolen capital to Lebanon. Protestors are asking the judiciary system to assume its responsibility and for the country to head towards a secular ruling system. But sectarian elements and foreign intervention are managing to divert attention from the real national demands that have been overwhelming the Lebanese since decades.

The foreign intervention is not relying on the justified demands of protestors in its confrontation with Hezbollah. It is relying on sectarian Lebanese who want to contribute to the fall of Hezbollah from the inside. This is not surprising because Lebanon is a platform where the US, EU, and Saudis are strongly present and active against the Axis of Resistance led by Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Hussein Salame warned in his most recent speech that these countries risk “crossing the line”.

Since the “Islamic Revolution” in 1979 Iran has not initiated a military or preventive war on its neighbours, but has limited its action to defending itself and in building its “Axis of Resistance”. Recently, Iran proposed – to no avail – a HOPE (Hormuz Peace Endeavor) to its neighbours, seeking a commitment to the security of the Middle East separately from any US intervention.

Iran defeated the mainstream international community when it helped prevent the fall of the government in Damascus after years of war. It has effectively supported Hezbollah and the Palestinians against Israel, favoured ally of the US; Iran stood next to Iraq and prevented a hostile government reaching power; Iran has also supported the defence of Yemen against Saudi Arabia’s useless and destructive war. Iran’s enemies are numerous and have not given up. They tried but failed to achieve their objectives in 2006 in Lebanon, in 2011 in Syria, in 2014 in Iraq and in 2015 in Yemen. Today a new approach is being implemented to defeat Iran’s allies: the weaponization of domestic unrests, motivated by legitimate anti-corruption demands for reform, at the cost of “incinerating” entire countries, i.e. Lebanon and Iraq.

Protestors have failed to offer a feasible plan themselves and caretaker Prime Minister Hariri is trying to punch above his parliamentary weight by seeking to remove political opponents who control more than half of the parliament. Lebanon has reached a crossroads where an exchange of fire is no longer excluded. The conflict has already claimed lives. Thanks to manipulation, Lebanon seems to be headed towards self-destruction."


https://ejmagnier.com/2019/11/27/the...ed-until-when/

Chinese premier stresses quality in making 14th five-year plan


"BEIJING， Nov． 26 （Xinhua） －－ Chinese Premier Li Keqiang stressed quality in making the 14th Five－Year Plan （2021－2025） on Monday while chairing a meeting on the new plan． China has deepened reform in all areas and promoted wider opening up since the implementation of the 13th Five－Year Plan and fulfilled the goals listed in the plan on schedule， he said．

Following the principle of pursuing progress while ensuring stability， all regions and departments have deepened the all－round reform， taken the initiative to further open up， responded to risks and challenges from home and abroad， and maintained medium－high economic growth within a reasonable range， he said．

While the external environment is likely to be more complex with uncertainties and challenges， China is in a critical period to change its growth model， improve its economic structure， and foster new drivers of growth， he said
．
To ensure quality in making the plan， the country should study the opportunities and challenges， give top priority to development， and base its efforts on basic national conditions and stage of development， Li said．

The premier stressed several principles of making the new plan， including to keep the economy running within a reasonable range， to promote high－quality development， to emphasize the vision of people－centered development， and to highlight the role of reform and innovation in tackling difficulties．

Li stressed the importance to plan the key pillars for economic and social development during the 14th Five－Year Plan period．

A number of major policies should be introduced to promote economic development， enhance the well－being of the people and guard against risks， he said．

A batch of major reform and opening－up initiatives should be launched to enhance the endogenous engines for growth and stimulate market vitality， he said．

Some major projects will be launched to improve weak links， promote economic upgrading， boost development momentum and benefit people＇s livelihood， he said"

Chinese premier stresses quality in making 14th five-year plan _ Qiushi Journal