If the coronavirus is not contained it is a serious threat to the whole of humanity in every country. But so far the decisive actions of the Chinese government, which have been strongly praised by the World Health Organisation and other responsible international bodies, are containing that threat. The suffering in Hubei province is intense and tension is naturally great throughout China’s medical teams, who are the front line not only for their country but for humanity, battle to contain the virus. Not only China but the whole world is entirely depending on them.
To call any virus a "Chinese" virus is as silly as to say that it is someone's fault if he catches the flu or gets sick in general. It can happen anywhere in the world, and it can happen to every person on the planet. The lesson from this recent case of the reaction to the outbreak of the coronavirus is that it shows who in the international community is capable of responding to dangers that threaten all of humanity, and who is a troglodyte, and who is not.
"No public health gain is achieved without a battle." The recent outbreak of the novel coronavirus reminded me of these words of American M.D. Milton I. Roemer, which are printed on the back cover of a book I read several years ago - The Healthiest City: Milwaukee and the Politics of Health Reform, published in 1996.
The outbreak of the coronavirus in Wuhan caught everyone by surprise. At the beginning of the Spring Festival holiday travel, the danger of a rapid spread was particularly dangerous. At the point it was discovered, the reaction of the government was swift and comprehensive, both with regard to prevention as well as detection. The Chinese government is following the development of the disease closely from the get-go and have taken extraordinary measures at the national level to deal with the crisis. All Spring Festival celebrations were canceled for the sake of people's health.
Now is a good time to remind the world leaders of the half-finished debates of the past two decades and of the need to strengthen the international cooperation for an adequate protection against the global spreading of infectious diseases.Peace is more than a mere absence of a global war. Peace requires much more and protection of lives against epidemics must be a priority. This is not a time for futile criticism of globalization, but rather a time for strengthened multilateral cooperation, which alone can secure a peaceful and a more prosperous world.
Western strategists have intentionally or unintentionally ignored the fact that China has not called the "Belt and Road" a strategy, but an initiative. One of the reasons is that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is not China-centric, nor to create an alliance. BRI is a cooperative initiative targeted at development. It aims to build a platform to achieve joint development with other countries. China does not engage in building a closed circle excluding other countries.
Even though the Chinese government is taking great measures to contain the outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus, Western media and so-called political pundits continue to criticize Beijing’s response to propagate their anti-China agenda, John Ross, senior fellow at the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University of China, told Sputnik Wednesday.
The spread of the novel coronavirus has brought an element of suffering to the 2020 Spring Festival. This has made the normally optimistic Chinese people more cautious about the future.
It's not the first time that Congress has shown an interest in the region. In 2002, Congress passed the Tibet Policy Act, which called for political discussions between China and the Dalai Lama who had spent an awful lot of time soft-soaping U.S. legislators on the issue.
China and the United States have just signed the phase one trade agreement, a development widely applauded by the international community. The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, said the agreement will reduce the uncertainty that has dampened global economic growth. The American business community also commented positively on the agreement, largely because they have paid a hefty price for the "trade war."
Can China digest such a huge increase in imports from the US? I think the country has the potential, but it might be stuffed in the short term. It's like people who have a good appetite, but one might choke up if eating too fast. The key issue is, when such a situation occurs, it might impact the original process of structural adjustment in China's growth in social consumption. There will be fierce competition in Chinese markets among US products, other foreign merchandise and Chinese goods.
A piece of good news has finally arrived as we usher in a new decade.On 15 January 2020 (EST), China and the US signed the Economic and Trade Agreement between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China at Washington. This agreement is also widely known to observers and commentators as the “phase one” trade agreement between the two powers.
For the most part of the first decade in the 21st century, the five BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa —were among the fastest growing emerging markets. Certainly, the term, first coined as “BRIC” by Goldman Sachs in 2003, does not mean that these countries are a political alliance (like the European Union) or a formal trading association, though they have the potential to form a powerful economic bloc. Leaders from the BRICS countries regularly attend summits together and often act in concert with each other’s interests.
For the most part of the first decade in the 21st century, the five BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa —were among the fastest growing emerging markets. Certainly, the term, first coined as “BRIC” by Goldman Sachs in 2003, does not mean that these countries are a political alliance (like the European Union) or a formal trading association, though they have the potential to form a powerful economic bloc. Leaders from the BRICS countries regularly attend summits together and often act in concert with each other’s interests.
Over the past two years, Washington has unilaterally and repeatedly imposed tariffs and otherwise pressured China based on a fundamental accusation — that China practices “state capitalism,” or statism.” The 2016 report to Congress by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said that China had been pursuing a series of industrial policies to help its domestic companies gain an unfair advantage over their foreign competitors in the overseas market.
January 15, 2020 will be recorded in history as marking a hard-won truce in the 22-month trade war between the world’s two largest economies. The signing of the phase one agreement indicates a temporary detente, providing a relatively stable and predictable environment for the coming months — hopefully even longer.
On January 15, U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He signed the phase one agreement on trade to great fanfare. While there is still much concern that the phase one agreement is insufficient in the long run to resolve the overall trade dispute and that many of the contentious issues will have to be resolved in the negotiations for a phase two, or even a phase three negotiation, the tensions have receded. The signing of the agreement also allowed Trump to wax eloquent about his personal relationship to Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom he congratulated on achieving this agreement.
China and the U.S. signed the phase one trade agreement on January 15, 2020, after their on-and-off negotiations and tariff escalations that lasted for nearly two years. The phase one agreement is a hard-won achievement, indicating a temporary detente in the bilateral trade relations, providing a relatively stable and predictable environment for coming months. It also suggests a pathway for managing the two sides' differences in the future.
As China and Myanmar deepen relations, many Westerners believe that India's strategic room in the Indian Ocean region would be squeezed. New Delhi has a similar standpoint, thinking it should strengthen cooperation with countries in the vicinity so as to neutralize the increasing strategic presence of China in the region. Such viewpoint has influenced India's participation in the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and it has actually put the two neighbors in opposite positions in a zero-sum game.
The concept of human rights has a great variety of connotations about what it actually means in practice. The notion is generally accepted by all nations. But in different societies, with different forms of government and social interaction, human rights may take different forms, often as a result of cultural, social or political differences.The United States has often attempted to present itself as the "arbiter" of human rights.