Trading Places
Awkward AUKUS for Albanese, Saudi China trade behemoth, Capitalists Revolt over China, Pakistan Russia Relations Re-emerge
UPDATE: PM Aukus (Albanese) presented his most cringeworthy undiplomatic address that publicly insulted a world superpower, which is also Australia’s largest trade partner – China, in a foot-in-mouth effort to make China be nice to USA.
Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Investment signed $10 billion worth of investment agreements with Chinese companies on 11 June, the first day of the 10th Arab-China Business Conference in Riyadh.
Western hawks face an unlikely resistance. After marshalling Europe in its proxy war against Russia, America is now determined to repeat this success against China. Here, the consequences for Europe could be even more significant than the economic shock of the past year.
Over recent years Pakistan and Russia have succeeded in making significant progress in bilateral trade. Russia has become a major supplier of wheat to Pakistan, with shipments exceeding one million tons last year. Negotiations on launching a cooperation project in the oil sector are at their final stage (Lavrov).
Australian PM’s Disrespectful AUKUS Address In Singapore
By Dr. Vacy Vlazna
At the 20th Shangri-La Dialogue, the regional security forum, in Singapore, on 2 June 2023, PM Aukus (Albanese) presented his most cringeworthy undiplomatic address that publicly insulted a world superpower, which is also Australia’s largest trade partner – China, in a foot-in-mouth effort to make China be nice to USA.
Yes, the same USA that for years has aggressively bashed China’s reputation to the world, with deliberate misinformation about its ‘internal conflicts’ that are actually CIA-sponsored separatist movements of Uyghur, Hong Kong and now Taiwan, to poke the Great Panda to war.
China, in response to USA’s disrespect, has withheld communications as it had with the Australian Morrison government for its obedient babbling the USA’s insolent and fake accusation that China was responsible for Covid.
To lure China to open communication with the USA, PM Aukus, ironically drew from his shallow font of his negotiation experience with the USA to release innocent Australian journalist, Julian Assange, from US & UK torture that doesn’t hold “to the standards that the rest of us respect”.
Note each of the quotes below from Albanese’s address are directed to, though not named, imply China. Ironically, they are psychological projection of his appalling silent refusal to pick up the phone to directly demand Assange’s (and also Daniel Duggan’s) freedom by PM’s AUKUS partners who are “too big for the rules”:
“the silence of the diplomatic deep freeze”
“But we begin from the principle that whatever the issue, whether we agree or disagree, it is always better and more effective if we deal direct.”
“If you don’t have the capacity – at a decision-making level – to pick up the phone, to seek some clarity or provide some context, then there is always a much greater risk of assumptions spilling over into irretrievable action and reaction.
“If this breaks down, if one nation imagines itself too big for the rules, or too powerful to be held to the standards that the rest of us respect, then our region’s strategic stability is undermined,” he warned.
“I can assure you that when Australia looks north, we don’t see a void for others to impose their will.”
These offensive clangers of PM Aukus’ public humiliation of China would have shocked his Asian audience of ‘close friends” of “nearly 600 delegates from more than 40 countries and regions, including the defense ministers of the U.S. and China”. Their politeness must have been strained to control their shock at Albanese’s appalling tactless and undeserved insinuations about China that violate Asian cultural protocol in which RESPECT is the core of relationships.
Obviously, in a coma of post-colonial smugness, both the PM and his speech writer neglected to respect the Chinese pride in their 5000 years of civilisation and importantly, ignored respect for President Xi Jinping’s reemergence of Confucian values for the establishment of the Chinese national moral identity.
If PM Aukus’ blundering pedagogy was bad enough, he excelled his ignorance with this blatant lie:
“Australia’s goal is not to prepare for war,”
The assembly must have shifted from shock to bemusement;
Firstly, the Australian mainstream media has been spruiking, since the election of the Labor War Party, its secret AUKUS deal which provides “the US with access to Australian minerals[esp. lithium]”, “a joint US-UK submarine presence” and a permanent Japanese military presence.
Albanese, Marles,Wong have been on a endless circuit through Pacific and Asian nations to recruit allies and undermine China’s enterprises in the Asia-Pacific region while boosting up Australia’s military preparations for US, UK, and Japanese bases here to lead the US proxy war on China because “AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simply because the AUKUS deal will be off if we don’t.” (Hugh White)
Secondly, the Asian and Pacific nations must be laughing in the aisles about the decrepit AUKUS members who since WWII have lost every US led-wars: PM Aukus is the tin pot leader of a 50,000 military force (including some war criminals and falling numbers) plus one operational Collins submarine out of 6, that will be replaced, with exorbitant cost, for 8 US nuclear submarines by possibly 2050 by which they will be redundant. The UK’s military is facing its winter of discontent, and the USA military and empire is in decline and its economy is bankrupt..nevertheless will likely cause “conflicts and chaos” as the Chinese military twitter states:
#China’s senior military expert: “During the past 40 years, the #US and #NATO caused a series of conflicts, turmoil, and even wars in the #MiddleEast and #Europe, resulting in severe humanitarian crises and disasters. We have reasons to be concerned that the US-led NATO intervention in the Asia-Pacific region may bring about instability and unrest, and may even lead to conflicts and chaos.”
Despite PM Albanese’s didactic insights and threats, China is busy elsewhere, with real diplomacy resolving conflicts in the Middle East and winning hearts and minds around the globe by spreading prosperity, unlike the USA and its western thugs that attack hearts and minds with bombs, drones and death.
Over 91% of Australians want the government to rescue Assange, and last week Queensland Labor delegates voted against AUKUS.
Australians, not their political leaders, will decide at the next election, to either vote for warmongering major parties that blithely handed over our sovereignty that, ultimately, risks our children’s lives – or vote for a cooperating parliament of Independents who sustain a world of peace along a modernised Silk Road to prosperity.
Read more here.
Saudi Arabia announces huge investment deals at Arab-China summit
Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Investment signed $10 billion worth of investment agreements with Chinese companies on 11 June, the first day of the 10th Arab-China Business Conference in Riyadh.
The deals include a $5.6 billion agreement with Chinese electric car maker Human Horizons for automotive research, development, manufacturing, and sales of luxury electric vehicles.
Other investment agreements span sectors such as technology, renewables, agriculture, real estate, minerals, supply chains, tourism, and healthcare, according to the Saudi Press Agency (SPA).
Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan said in a speech at the conference that China remains the largest trading partner of Arab countries, with the volume of trade exchange reaching $430 billion in 2022, up 31 percent from the previous year.
The kingdom makes up 25 percent of this volume. According to Bin Farhan, 2022, trade between Riyadh and Beijing reached $106.1 billion.
The Saudi official stressed that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Riyadh in December 2022 “further strengthened political, economic, investment and trade ties between the two friendly countries.”
Several agreements worth more than $50 billion were signed during Xi’s visit, which coincided with the launch of the first China-Arab States Summit and China-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Summit.
In response to growing discontent over historically lopsided ties between Arab states and the US, China has made significant diplomatic and economic inroads across West Asia.
In March, Saudi Aramco – the world’s biggest crude exporter – agreed to acquire a 10 percent interest in Chinese producer Rongsheng Petrochemical for $3.6 billion.
Under the deal, Aramco would supply 480,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Arabian crude oil to Rongsheng affiliate Zhejiang Petroleum and Chemical Co Ltd (ZPC) under a long-term sales agreement.
Aramco is also building a 300,000 bpd refining and ethylene-based steam cracking complex in China’s Panjin City with Chinese partners Norinco Group and Panjin Xincheng Industrial Group (PXIG).
Beijing is also responsible for securing a landmark rapprochement deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which also led to the restoration of ties between the kingdom and Syria.
Saudi Arabia announced on Sunday billions of dollars in investment deals between China and the Arab world, on the first day of the China-Arab business conference in Riyadh.
The meeting came amid growing commercial and diplomatic ties between Beijing and Middle Eastern countries, including a recent landmark Chinese-brokered rapprochement between powerhouses Iran and Saudi Arabia that has shifted regional relations.
The capitalists are revolting over China
By Thomas Fazi
Western hawks face an unlikely resistance.After marshalling Europe in its proxy war against Russia, America is now determined to repeat this success against China. Here, the consequences for Europe could be even more significant than the economic shock of the past year. Yet, despite a few grumbles from Macron and others, European leaders are largely playing along with this increasingly aggressive approach: at last week’s biannual US-EU Trade and Technology Council, both parties claimed to “see very much eye-to-eye” on the issue.
Below the surface, however, views are hardening against the EU’s efforts to emulate America’s hawkish approach, which includes economic decoupling (or “de-risking”, as it’s now called) and increasing Nato’s presence in the Indo-Pacific. Over the past four years, von der Leyen has worked tirelessly to keep Europe aligned with America’s aggressive geopolitical strategy, often appearing to prioritise Washington’s desires over Europe’s strategic interests. No wonder Politico dubbed her “Europe’s American president”.
On China, von der Leyen has taken an increasingly tough line, recently urgingEurope to “de-risk” its relationship. The bloc’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, has echoed her tone, calling President Xi’s support of Russia “a blatant violation” of its UN commitments. Brussels is also devising a Sustainable Corporate Governance initiative, which would force European companies to ensure that EU social and human rights standards apply throughout their supply chain. Germany has already introduced a softer version of the rule, which currently applies only to 150 companies, though the number is set to rise to 15,000.
Already many European companies are pushing back against the measures, claiming that they place an excessive regulatory and bureaucratic burden on industry at a time of massive economic challenges. Unsurprisingly, German companies are leading the charge: China is the country’s largest trading partner, with total trade last year of nearly €300 billion. Europe’s economic powerhouse has already taken a heavy it from its decoupling from Russian gas and other commodities; with its economy in recession and an inflation rate of 7.2%, Germany cannot afford to lose China as well. The same can be said for the EU as a whole.
The fact that the von der Leyen insists on mimicking the American strategy despite the bloc’s deep interdependence with China highlights the extent to which the EU, wedded as it is to a subservient interpretation of the bloc’s relationship to the US, is now a threat to Europe’s core interests. As Wolfgang Münchau noted: “The EU economy is not built for Cold War-style relations because it has become too dependent on global supply chains… The underlying reality of modern-day Europe is that it cannot easily extricate itself from its relationship with China.”
In this context, it is hardly surprising that German businesses are pushing back against Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s call to weaken Germany’s economic relationship with China. Abandoning China is “unthinkable” for German industry, Mercedes CEO Ola Källenius said in April, in comments that echoed across the country’s boardrooms — from Siemens to BASF to BMW, all of which have vowed to continue investing in the country. “We won’t give up on China,” Volkswagen’s chief financial officer made clear.
Yet while similar views are being expressed in Italy and France, China’s other two largest trading partners in the EU, it remains unclear whether this will translate into a decisive shift in Europe’s official China policy. For now, most national and EU leaders seem more interested in pleasing the US establishment than thinking about Europe’s long-term economic and geopolitical interests. However, European business leaders can count on some powerful allies in the US — not in Washington, but among fellow capitalists.
For in America, a similar revolt is brewing over the administration’s decoupling with China. Despite the fraying of Sino-American relations at the political level, several American CEOs have continued to visit China. While the bosses of J.P. Morgan, Starbucks, GM and Apple have all flown in since March, it was Elon Musk’s visit, which took place last week, that predictably caused the biggest shockwaves.
According to the Financial Times, “in just two days… Elon Musk had more top-level Chinese meetings than most Biden administration officials have had in months”, including with Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang. The foreign ministry quoted Musk as saying that he was willing to expand business in China and opposed a decoupling of the US and China economies, adding that he described the world’s two largest economies as “conjoined twins”. Musk’s trip coincided with that by J.P. Morgan boss Jamie Dimon, who in a speech in Shanghai calledfor “real engagement” between Washington and Beijing.
Such open defiance of Washington’s foreign policy stance by some of the most powerful CEOs in America represents a striking development. Critics of US-Western foreign policy and military interventionism have traditionally (and correctly) seen the latter as being essentially aimed at enforcing the Western-led global capitalist order — in other words, as being in the service of big business by opening up new markets, securing control of resources or intervening whenever Western business interests were threatened. As New York Timescolumnist Thomas Friedman put it in 1999: “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist — McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for [American corporations] is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”
However, in light of the growing rifts between America’s economic and political elites, does this analytical framework still hold? It’s hard to see, after all, how the West’s aggressive US-led foreign policy — aimed at antagonising and militarising relations with China, the world’s second-largest consumer market and largest rare-earth mineral exporter, in the same fashion as it has with Russia — serves the “general interests” of Western capital, or even how it serves a strictly capitalist logic. How is Nato “helping McDonald’s”, to borrow Friedman’s phrase, by forcing it to exit Russia at a cost of more than $1 billion? No wonder major representatives of Western corporate interests aren’t peachy about the prospect of a new Cold War — not to mention an actual war with China, which would have devastating effects on the US and global economy.
However, their appeals today seem to fall on deaf ears in Washington and other Western national capitals. As Adam Tooze has observed: “The ‘peace interest’ anchored in the investment and trading connections of US big business with China has been expelled from centre stage. On the central axis of US strategy, big business has less influence today that at any time since the end of the Cold War”. Yet this begs the question: if US-Western foreign policy no longer serves the interests of big business, whose interests does it serve?
Well, there is really only one social class that stands to benefit from the militarisation of great-power relations: the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower’s description for the network of corporations and vested interests that revolve around a country’s defence and national security sector. What’s changed since the Sixties, however, is that these interests are no longer aligned with those of the Western corporate community — in fact, the two are diametrically opposed.
The paradox, of course, is that for decades big business has encouraged the continuous expansion of the military-industrial complex as a tool to promote its interests abroad. Yet in a Frankenstein-like twist of fate, the beast has been allowed to become so powerful that it has broken free from its masters — and is now turning against them, as Italian author David Colantoni shows in his book on the “armed class”. No longer is the military-industrial complex subordinated to the general interests of the capitalist class; rather, it is the latter that is increasingly subordinated to the interests of the military-industrial complex.
Now, the military-industrial complex follows a capitalist logic as well, of course: war, or even just the constant preparation for war, is clearly good for business. But, ultimately, it’s about more than just profits: it’s about ensuring the reproduction of the military class, which extends well beyond the big defence companies to include civilian auxiliaries in defence-related government agencies, think tanks, academia, and many others.
What’s slowly becoming clear, however, is that the old capitalist class doesn’t seem willing to go down without a fight. Indeed, we may be on the verge of a new historical class struggle: the owners of the means of production against the owners of the means of destruction. Whoever wins, the peculiar nature of this conflict should not be underestimated: the greatest resistance to the new Cold War isn’t coming from a global peace movement, but from the boardrooms of Western corporations. Faced with China’s supremacy, they have nothing to lose but their chains.
Read more here.
Sergey Lavrov on Pakistan Russia 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations
Dear citizens of Pakistan!
I am glad to congratulate you on the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. We know about the great interest and respect that the Pakistani people entertain towards Russia and President Vladimir Putin. We appreciate it very much.
There have been different periods in our relations over the past three quarters of a century. However, Russia has always been interested in expanding cooperation with Pakistan, and under no circumstances has abandoned its commitments. The participation of Soviet specialists in the construction of the largest steel mill in Karachi (now called Pakistan Steel Mills) in the 1980s, despite the conflict raging in Afghanistan at the time, is clear evidence of this. The Guddu Thermal Power Plant, then the largest in your country, was also commissioned at that time.
Nowadays, our relations are advanced and based on trust. They are founded on the concurrence or proximity of approaches to the key issues of the international agenda. Together with our Pakistani partners, we stand for shaping a more just and democratic multipolar world order. We respect the cultural and civilizational diversity of peoples and their right to determine the avenues of their political, social and economic development themselves. I would like to note that Russia's vision of the world order and our understanding of traditional moral values is in harmony with the principles of faith, unity and discipline formulated by the Father of the Pakistani people Muhammad Ali Jinnah. It is on these pillars that the statehood of modern Pakistan is based.
We attach great importance to further constructive cooperation with your country in international fora. We highly appreciate Pakistan's contribution to the activities of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. We welcome Islamabad's active involvement in joint work within the SCO as a full member of this Organization, which plays an important role in establishing multilateral cooperation in Greater Eurasia. We consider the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to be a key international partner in the joint efforts to combat common security challenges and threats, including transborder crime and terrorism.
It is encouraging that over the recent years we have succeeded in making significant progress in bilateral trade. Russia has become a major supplier of wheat to Pakistan, with shipments exceeding one million tons last year. Negotiations on launching a cooperation project in the oil sector are at their final stage.
We are willing to work together on further engagement of our countries and peoples, strengthening mutually beneficial relations in politics, security, economy, education, in cultural and humanitarian fields as well as in other areas.
Pakistan-Roosi dosti zindabad! (in Urdu "Long live the friendship between Russia and Pakistan!").
Read more here.