Normally, seeing people walking their dogs in the evening is a common sight in Beijing, including big dogs like golden retrievers, huskies and border collies.

But on Monday evening this week, the Global Times only saw one person walking her small teddy bear dog.

This might be because of reports that have gone viral on social media platforms claiming that Beijing regional authorities planned to inspect every local community on Monday to catch stray dogs and any illegal or unregistered pet dogs, or those being walked without a leash.

The inspection did not happen in the end, despite the claims online. But the Global Times learned from some dog breeders in Chaoyang that some people have been promoting high-end kennels - which cost 20,000 yuan ($2,736) per year - citing the so-called Monday inspections.

There are similar situations across the country and heated discussion over dog management, after a 2-year-old girl was reportedly seriously hurt by a rottweiler in Chongzhou, a county-level city in Chengdu, Southwest China's Sichuan Province.

The girl has got through the most dangerous period, media reports said, and was moved from intensive care to a normal ward on Monday. But the controversy over the news is growing, and many local authorities and property management companies are reportedly planning campaigns to strengthen local dog management, including catching and possibly even killing stray dogs.

The authorities in Xiamen, East China's Fujian Province, announced on Tuesday the launch of a rectification campaign against illegal dogs until December 30. The campaign will focus on illegal dog-raising behavior like failure to register the dog or conduct a yearly inspection, as well as raising certain fierce dog breeds that are banned in cities and walking dogs without a leash.

A security guard from Chongqing Technology and Business University was reported to have captured and killed a stray dog on October 17, sparking a backlash from the student body. Five days later, the school announced that it had fired the security guard on the grounds of inappropriate behavior during the disposal process.

On Tuesday, posts went viral on Chinese social media platforms claiming that Shanghai public security authorities broke into a local resident's home and took away a large dog. The Shanghai authorities had not responded to the claims as of Tuesday.

Dog owners are now hesitating to take out their pets, and dog lovers are angry about the action being taken against all dogs just based on one incident. Others have called for a more rational approach amid mixed information, and stressed that the most important thing is to complete an effective dog management system.
One dog bites, all dogs pay

The measures to try and catch stray dogs in several Chinese cities have worried some animal rights advocates and dog lovers, who complained the regional governments were using a one-size-fits-all approach.

"Many dogs become strays after being abandoned by their previous owners. They are poor and innocent," said an animal protection volunteer surnamed Wei. "Why do these cities punish the abandoned dogs rather than the people who abandoned them?"

Wei has been rescuing stray dogs and cats in Suzhou, East China's Jiangsu Province for almost a decade. Along with other local volunteers, she has paid with her own money to have the rescued strays vaccinated, and found families willing to adopt them.

Wei said she was sad about the attack on the 2-year-old, as well as other cases of ferocious dogs attacking humans. "But the dogs don't know they've done something wrong," she said, noting that the dog owners should be responsible and take the punishment for their pets.

"Keeping dogs in a civilized manner is a slogan that everybody knows. The important thing is whether there are accompanying measures to put this slogan into practice," Wei told the Global Times. She suggested that regional governments could build a pet-keeping system with practical policies and regulations, such as mandatory use of a leash in public, severe penalties for pet abuse and abandonment, and neutering or spaying the strays.

'Not the dog's fault'

In recent years, reports of dogs biting people have not been uncommon in China. According to data released by the National Health Commission, by the end of 2021 China had the largest number of dogs in the world, reaching 130 million in 2012, with over 12 million people bitten each year. Data released by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that in 2019, there were 276 deaths from rabies nationwide, while in 2018 and 2017, there were 410 and 502 deaths, respectively.

Shen Ruihong, former secretary-general of the China Small Animal Protection Association, said that dogs biting people is not the fault of the dogs, but the fault of their owners and of social management.

"Fierce dogs like rottweilers are in fact relatively obedient and have a stable temperament. With proper training, they can also be used as working dogs, such as police dogs and guard dogs and have great social value. However, in our country, the threshold for owning a dog is too low. You can easily purchase a dog on platforms like Taobao and Douyin without anyone supervising whether you get a dog license, vaccinate the dog, or care for and train it," Shen told Sanlian Lifeweek.

Shen criticized the one-size-fits-all measures by some local authorities that catch and kill all dogs that are not leashed or licensed. Raising pets is an important way for people to cope with stress and loneliness nowadays. Such measures by the authorities could lead to public outrage, he said.

Chinese authorities have been actively making efforts on management of pet dogs in urban areas. Since 1994, the regulations governing dog ownership in Beijing have been revised twice. Before that year, keeping the animals was strictly prohibited in the city.

Most Chinese cities have divided their administrative areas into restricted and non-restricted areas for pet ownership, with restricted areas mostly being the central urban areas. Local regulations explicitly prohibit individuals from keeping aggressive dogs and large breeds in the restricted areas, and a list of banned dog breeds has been established. Some cities also have height requirements for adult dogs. For example, in Beijing, it is forbidden to keep adult dogs with a height exceeding 35 centimeters in the restricted areas.

In addition, pet owners are required to obtain a dog license, which includes registration information such as the owner's name, address, contact information, dog breed, and major physical characteristics. Illegal dogs or those ineligible for a license can be confiscated by the public security authorities, and the owners may also face fines. The fine for individuals is set at 5,000 yuan in Beijing, Shenzhen, and other places, and ranges from 50 yuan to 200 yuan in Chengdu, according to media reports.

The revised national law on prevention of animal epidemics also requires the display of dog licenses and dogs must be leashed when being walked outside. Some cities like Shanghai also require owners to put muzzles on their dogs in public areas.
But few of the regulations are effectively implemented. "The cost of law enforcement is high and the cost of violation is low, requiring a certain amount of manpower and financial resources to implement the regulations. Meanwhile, there are difficulties in defining penalties for dog owners and timely supervision of dog licenses. There is also a need for discussion on how to divide restricted dog ownership areas," a lawyer from Henan-based Zejin law office named Fu Jian told the media.

Shen noted the strict regulations in Germany, as compared to China's ineffective management system. He said that in Germany, dog owners need to pay an annual dog tax. Before owning a large dog or certain breeds, owners must obtain a breeding certificate by passing a theoretical test that covers topics such as animal medicine, animal psychology, and legal knowledge. Dogs also need to attend training schools for behavior correction and training, with training fees typically costing 50 euros per hour. The training cost for aggressive dogs is even higher. Those who fail to properly supervise their dogs in public places will be fined 10,000 euros. Those who privately feed "dangerous dogs" or take dogs out in public will be fined 50,000 euros. "But in China, people barely receive any punishment if they illegally keep, abuse or abandon dogs."

It is also urgently necessary to increase Chinese dog owners' sense of responsibility and their awareness of laws.

"Leashing is necessary, it is the bottom line," Yi Tongmo, a dog trainer told the media. Whether it is a large or small dog, leashing is a must when going out. Yi suggests that dog owners must have a good understanding of civilized dog ownership and actively guide their dogs' behavior. "Prevention is always better than cure; don't wait until the dog shows a tendency to attack people before seeking a solution."

Some successful examples

Shen suggested that Chinese cities could establish a registration system for dog ownership. This has been implemented in some cities such as Shanghai and Shenzhen.

Mechanisms to evaluate and train dogs and supervise their health are also needed. Similar mechanisms should also be applied to other pets, according to Shen.

A dog owner surnamed Guo in Shenzhen told the Global Times on Monday that she just took her dog to implant a chip in its neck. "Pet hospitals can get to know the owner's name and address by simply scanning the chip." But getting the chip is not mandatory.

Amid the current wave of controversy, Shenzhen is one of the few Chinese cities that has been praised for its measures to deal with stray dogs. According to media reports, Shenzhen residents can call local authorities to report stray dogs. The authorities will then go to pick them up, but the stray dogs are then either trained to become working dogs for the local authorities, or sent to local pet shelters for adoption.

The Global Times also found that Shenzhen authorities have established an app for dog ownership services. Owners can make reservations for registration, implanting chips and recording nose prints in the app. People can also use the app to apply to adopt stray dogs.

Another example is Macao. For dogs weighing over 23 kilograms, Macao authorities not only require them to be leashed but also mandate the use of a muzzle. Additionally, the city has established an exemption test for muzzles. The test, designed by animal experts, includes touching, tapping, and holding the dog's mouth to observe if any abnormal reactions occur. Dogs are also introduced to unfamiliar people and dogs to assess their behavior toward strangers. If the test is not passed, the dog must wear a muzzle when going out; if passed, the certification is valid for three years. The establishment of such exams actually promotes the scientific training of large dogs by their owners.

Editor's Note:

Japan, in an irresponsible manner, has started to dump its nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean, despite the environmental impact this will have on the ocean and strong oppositions from countries in the Pacific region. It's a crime against humanity. Why does Japan insist on doing so? What should countries, which will be directly affected by the dumping, do in response? Global Times (GT) reporter Wang Wenwen talked to Dr. Arjun Makhijani (Makhijani), president of the US-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and member of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Expert Panel, over these issues. This is the first installment of the series. 

GT: What concerns you most about the dumped nuclear-contaminated wastewater?

Makhijani: A great deal of the water in the tanks exceeds all norms and standards. Some tanks contain sludges; particulates are likely to be stirred up when water is withdrawn from them potentially clogging the filters. Water in some of the tanks is heavily contaminated with radionuclides like strontium-90, cesium-137 and iodine-129 far exceeding the acceptable limits. This is because the filtration system worked poorly and the early system was inadequate. 

A small part of the tanks doesn't appear to have significant contamination. But even this statement is uncertain because, as the PIF Expert Panel wrote, the sampling is biased and not representative of the contents of the tanks. This means neither TEPCO (Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Company) nor the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) has a statistically valid idea of the radionuclide content in the tanks.

It's concerning that TEPCO and Japan do not seem bothered by their lack of knowledge regarding the tank contents. This is scientifically problematic. TEPCO should know what is in the tanks; for example they need to test the filtration system with the different kinds of contaminated water it will have to handle. Japan has resisted the idea that they should know what is in the tanks, saying they will sample before discharge.

IAEA is also of the opinion that it doesn't matter if the tank contents are not accurately known now. I think this is scientifically unacceptable, but apparently it has been acceptable to the IAEA, TEPCO and the Japanese regulators.

One of the things that the Expert Panel said is that Japan hasn't tested the ALPS system adequately enough. We asked what they will do if they find that the water before discharge is not up to the norms. Both Japan and the IAEA said that they are going to repeatedly run the water through the ALPS system. How many times? One of the IAEA representatives said if there is proof that the water doesn't meet the norms, they could run it through ALPS 300 times, if necessary, to bring it to the standard for discharge. Even a dozen times would be too much; it would mean the filtration is not working properly and that it hasn't been tested enough. You can't just say you're going to run the water through many times. That's not a technically sensible answer.

GT: People from countries around the Pacific have been the main force opposing Japan's dumping of the nuclear-contaminated wastewater. Why did we fail to stop Japan?

Makhijani: I think this is something for the Japanese government to answer. We as an Expert Panel asked them, what is the justification for this? Countries in the Pacific region, like China, South Korea, the Philippines and the Marshall Islands will be harmed. We know that some harm has already happened. There was a salt panic in South Korea. There is some societal harm, which can be measured. Countries like South Korea and China receive no benefit. It is very clear that the dumping is not justified.  

Japan believes it can unilaterally decide to pollute the oceans. Despite claiming that the Pacific region is one society, Japan alone will make the decision. So other countries don't have a decision-making authority, because Japan is deciding for the whole Pacific region. I think this is scandalous. It is a position that could lead to ecological chaos, because other countries could say the same and dump pollutants into the ocean.

GT: How do you comment on the lukewarm attitude of some Western countries toward this issue?

Makhijani: The US has supported Japan's dumping plan. It relied on the IAEA's assertion that the impact is negligible, partly because it is also doing dumping itself. There is a lot of protest in the US about this. There are petitions circulating. Now the US has its own tritium problem. There are decommissioned plants in Massachusetts and New York where they are proposing to dump tritiated water into the ocean. People are protesting and they don't want this.

I know G7 has supported Japan. Germany somewhat objected. I don't know if G20 will take this up. Many countries have their own nuclear dumping problems. So it's easier to say yes to Japan than to say no. It's not a secret that there are big political tensions and questions surrounding this matter, and there are alignments happening between the US and Japan. I don't know whether political considerations have been a part of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have. 

Apart from all that, I want to note that I recommend that all countries who are now dumping tritium contaminated water from nuclear power plants should stop doing it and begin the process of the best way to do it now.

GT: While China bans all Japanese seafood imports, Japan has warned China of WTO action. How do you see such buck-passing moves by Japan?

Makhijani: Japan thinks it can take the issue to the WTO to compel China to stop banning seafood imports from Japan. But China can counter by taking the issue to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea when it comes to legal questions. There are so many legal forums. The WTO in my opinion does not have a very friendly attitude toward the environment. Maybe China should use this occasion to urge the WTO to be more environmentally friendly. In the WTO, military, security and trading issues trump everything else. Well, not all values are confined to those areas. I think it would be much better if Japan stops dumping. It would make things much easier.

There are many other avenues for seeking redress beyond the WTO. China is a big, powerful and wealthy country, the second biggest economy in the world and technically very sophisticated. My suggestion for China would be to push the IAEA to withdraw its endorsement because of bad science and the lack of justification for the dumping, which violates the fundamental safety principle No. 4 of the IAEA and the corresponding guidance in GSG-8. If Japan goes to the WTO, why doesn't China go to many other forums in which this can be addressed?

The amount of dumping that has happened so far is relatively small. This is an activity that is going to go on for 30 years at least. If the intention is to stop Japan from dumping, there have to be more forums than the WTO. The IAEA should be held accountable both for its own sake and also as a way of holding Japan accountable. If the IAEA admits that it should have considered the deficiencies in Japan's environmental impact assessment, or more importantly, should have considered justification, then Japan's position on dumping will likely have to change because they relied on the IAEA's statement that the impact will be negligible in order to start dumping.

There is an old saying in China: "When the wound is healed the pain is forgotten." It means when a person's scars heal, they tend to forget how they got hurt and repeat the same mistakes. As US President Joe Biden was in India to attend the G20 summit, many people naturally thought of the causes and consequences of the G20 summit held in Washington in 2008.

Currently, Washington is eager to transform the G20 into a "battlefield" for competing with China for influence and boosting US global leadership.

According to a Reuters report on Thursday last week, "US President Joe Biden arrives at this weekend's Group of 20 (G20) meeting in India with an offer for the 'Global South': whatever happens to China's economy, the US can help fund your development.''

The goal of Biden's trip to Vietnam and India, as well as his participation in the G20 summit, is to restrain China. Washington has become so keen to contend with China for influence that it is seizing every chance.

What about 14 years ago?

The G20 was established in the late 1990s after the Asian financial crisis as a forum for developed and developing countries to discuss financial stability. It was upgraded to a summit in 2008. The reason was that the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in that year set off a financial storm that engulfed the entire West and plunged the world economy into a quagmire. Who would save the West? Who would resurrect the global economy?

Washington turned its attention to emerging economies. As a result, the US became the host of the first G20 summit in 2008.

For a while before this financial crisis, emerging and developing economies accounted for about 30 percent of the global economy. But by 2010, their contribution had reached 70 percent. 

In November 2008, the G20 was upgraded from a meeting of finance ministers to a summit, and in April of the following year, the second summit was held in London. In September of the same year, in the Leaders' Statement in Pittsburgh, the fifth clause of the summit declaration had only two words: "It worked."

Biden and Washington policymakers may have long forgotten this scene. The G20 held two summits and effectively prevented the spread of this financial crisis. One of the main reasons was the participation of emerging economies, represented by China.

The Chinese economy has made important contributions to the recovery of the West and the global economy. World Bank reports show that from 2013 to 2021, China's average contribution rate to world economic growth reached 38.6 percent.

The G20 was intended to serve as a forum for fostering collaboration between advanced and developing countries, allowing both groups to investigate and advance the growth of the global economy on an equal basis.

However, in Washington's view, including the IMF and the World Bank, almost all international organizations are "battlefields," and they must seize every opportunity to win over allies and suppress China's influence, forming an alliance to contain China.

China has never sought to compete with the US for hegemony. "Not seeking hegemony" is the essence of China's peaceful development. China pursues common development. Emerging economies among the G20 members also share the same pursuit as China. They clearly show that they are unwilling to follow the geopolitical baton of the US and the West. The declaration reached now clearly demonstrates this issue.

In less than 20 years since the last financial crisis, the US president is anxiously trying to occupy the leadership position of the G20. Anyone with a basic comprehension of the existing global order can detect Washington's fears.

The latest news from Washington shows that $7.6 trillion of US government debt will mature next year, adding pressure on rates. Does it recall what happened in the US in 2008?

Editor's Note:

It seems that the frosty China-Australia relations have started to thaw faster. After three years, the bilateral high-level dialogue has resumed and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a visit to China later this year. However, the relationship between the two countries is still clouded by several factors, Washington's constant pursuit of containing China and the security pact AUKUS, announced two years ago this week, among others. In a conversation with Global Times (GT) reporter Xia Wenxin, Joseph Camilleri (Camilleri), Emeritus Professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences, shared his views on issues including China-Australia ties and the development of AUKUS.

GT: On September 15, 2021, the US, Australia and the UK announced a new security pact called AUKUS. After the establishment of this partnership, you commented that the agreement was "a story of recklessness and delusion." Now two years later, how do you see the development of AUKUS?

Camilleri: AUKUS has affected Australia's situation, and is a source of tension. What is unfortunate about AUKUS, in my view, is the impact it has on Australia. Much of this is about future "defense" planning. There are various forms of military cooperation between the US and Australia which have become closer and closer. AUKUS has simply given them another boost.

I called it a story of "recklessness and delusion" because it places Australian assets, resources and the country as a whole in a military relationship with the US, over which it has only limited control. And this tends to exacerbate its relations with other countries, China, of course, but also many other countries, especially in Southeast Asia. I am quite concerned about what this might mean for the future - in particular, whether it might lead to some kind of arms race in the Asia-Pacific region.

GT: Has AUKUS become an obstacle to China-Australia relations? How will this partnership affect the development of the relationship in the future?

Camilleri: It's just one more obstacle on top of the other obstacles. To find out what lies behind AUKUS and much else that goes hand in hand with the Australia-US military alliance, China, its people and its government cannot but ask the following questions: Are these arrangements aimed at China? What is the purpose of these arrangements? Why is the US so keen to have these kinds of provocative security relationships in the Asia-Pacific?

The US is keen to maintain its dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, where it has projected military far beyond its boundaries virtually unchallenged since the end of World War II. It is concerned that China's rise may pose a threat to its dominant position.

What the US wants to do in Asia-Pacific is to build as many security relationships as it can and make its military planning and weapons systems as closely interconnected as possible with the military establishments of its allies and partners. It sees this strategy as crucial to bolstering its position in the Asia-Pacific region. 

The US is presently intent on constructing an overwhelming military presence in both the Indian and Pacific Oceans. AUKUS is but one prong in this strategy. 

That is the problem we're facing: We have a major power that has been since World War II a superpower and the dominant power in the world, and it wants to preserve its dominance at all costs. But there are other countries, most notable China, that are rising and are committed to notions of multipolarity. Here you have a dangerous tension. And Australia, unfortunately, has been caught in the middle of these conflicting views as to what the future should look like.

GT: While Pillar 1 seems to face various difficulties, AUKUS has announced an ambitious Pillar 2 with the hope that more countries will join. What do you think is the motive of AUKUS countries behind such a move? And how likely is it that more countries will participate in the program in the future?

Camilleri: The intention of Pillar 2 has more to do with how these three countries - Australia, the US and the UK - will extend their cooperation beyond the nuclear power submarines and whether they will involve other types of defense capabilities, including artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, among others. That's one part of Pillar 2, one part of expanding the strategic military relationship. 

The other part is to bring other US allies into practical forms of military cooperation. Several have been mentioned: hypersonics, cyber security and anti-submarine warfare, the emphasis being on operational and practical cooperation.

I don't see too many countries being terribly enthusiastic about joining Pillar 2 - maybe Japan or South Korea, but even their joining is not exactly guaranteed, nor is it clear what form it will take. However, the underlying idea is clear: it is to build the political, diplomatic and military infrastructure that will enable the US to maintain dominance in the region. That's the name of the game. It may create problems in the short to medium term. We need to be concerned about these looming dangers. 

GT: In addition to AUKUS, Australia and the US have deepened their military partnership. For instance, Washington has made a commitment to help Australia produce guided multiple-launch rocket systems by 2025. What do you think of this "help" from the US? How will it affect Australia? 

Camilleri: The defense links between the two countries, including the AUKUS arrangement, will probably deepen as there is an increasing level of interoperability. From the point of view of the US military establishment, what Australia offers is real estate assets, that is to say, it can operate from different parts of the Australian continent which provides it not just with landing and refueling rights but also with platforms from which it can operate its land, sea and air forces.

And I suppose for the Australian military, the US offers a few "carrots." It supplies Australia with more advanced technology and perhaps some increased intelligence cooperation. This is just one part of the wider picture that I described before. The US is, in some respects, a declining power, and therefore needs to boost its position by relying on what its allies and security partners can provide. This is why there is so much emphasis, particularly under the Biden administration, on developing, maintaining and strengthening military alliance arrangements on the European front as well as in the Asia-Pacific.

Australia is becoming more and more enmeshed and integrated into US military planning. Against this backdrop, many Australians are challenging and questioning the current direction of Australian defense policy, even many within the Labor Party, the party in government. 

I expect there will be an ongoing debate within Australia for some time to come. The wider questions of Australia's place in the region and the world will become a major subject of public discussion for some time to come.

GT: A recent article in The Economist suggests that if a war were to break out with China, Australia seems most willing to fight alongside the US. Do you agree? Is such an argument wishful thinking only on the US' part?

Camilleri: I don't think these opinions carry a great deal of rational weight. Some years ago, a previous Liberal foreign minister made it clear that there is no commitment under the ANZUS alliance for Australia to join the US in a war against China, for example, in relation to Taiwan.

Australia would think many times before it became involved in such a conflict. But there is always a danger that this may happen. This danger needs to be taken seriously. The challenge, as I see it, is not what would happen in the event of a China-US war. The issue that we must all confront is: how do we make sure such a war never takes place? There's too much talk in Australia and elsewhere, even by those who oppose AUKUS, about what should not happen, and not enough about what should happen. 

We need to think about what alternatives look like, and the alternative is to try and build a regional framework in which all countries in Asia-Pacific, large and small, powerful and not so powerful, can coexist in relative peace. That's what Australia, among others, should be committed to.

GT: How do you see the role of the US in China-Australia relations? Some argue that structural conflicts in the China-US relationship constrain China-Australia ties. Do you share this view?

Camilleri: We've been discussing a major conflict that has emerged in recent times. At the moment, the conflict between China and the US is largely geopolitical, not military. This is something that the entire international community must be concerned about. We have to find ways whereby China and the US can live in peace with each other. It's critical for the future of both countries as well as the world. We cannot allow the present tensions to keep rising.

The US administration, in particular the US security establishment, has never fully consulted the American people as to how they should plan the future of the country's foreign and security policy. The American people have never been consulted and have never had the opportunity to participate in a serious public discussion of these issues. The same is true of Australia.

As we have seen, there is an emerging structural conflict. It is something we must all work to prevent and diffuse as best we can, and Australia should be playing its part. Unfortunately, it is not doing very well. So must other regional powers and, of course, the great powers, including the US and China.

GT: On September 7, China and Australia held their first high-level dialogue in three years. What kind of signals do you think this event has released? Does it lay the foundation for further easing in China-Australia relations? What suggestions do you have for the Australian government to improve its relations with China?

Camilleri: There are some positive signs. These are rather early signs which haven't yet gone very far. Part of the challenge we face is to identify the good things Australia and China could be doing together that they're not doing at present. It's very important that we put this question on the table in high-level dialogues. Also, in future discussions, Chinese and Australian government leaders must address the question, what are the good things that our two countries could be doing but are not presently doing? Two things stand out.

First, there is a great opportunity to develop the bilateral relationship. What we ought to place at the forefront of the relationship is not "strategic competition." Far more important is a better cultural understanding of each other. For Australia, this means a wide-ranging program with China's engagement to develop a better understanding of Chinese culture, history, civilization, language and, perhaps most importantly, Chinese perspectives on the emerging, rapidly transforming world order. Hopefully, the same question is being addressed in China, which is far bigger and more influential than Australia.

Ultimately, what matters most is people-to-people contacts and connections. Therefore, at the center of Australia-China discussions should be this question: What should we do to develop people-to-people relations between these two countries on a large scale? Such culturally based understanding and cooperation can greatly assist the bilateral relationship, in particular, mutually beneficial economic development, not least in trade, investment, and technological cooperation. 

The second thing has to do with multilateral relations. Australia and China should discuss seriously at the highest level what initiatives the two countries can take to advance the prospects for disarmament and demilitarization in our region. With the loosening and demotion of military alliances and appropriate diplomatic steps, we can work towards more effective forms of both regional and global governance. China and Australia should work together toward achieving urgently needed reform of the United Nations and greater regional cooperation on many fronts, including an economically and environmentally constructive code of conduct for the South China Sea. There is so much positive work that could be done. The time has come to do it, and do it with a renewed sense of urgency.

China's Ministry of State Security (MSS) exposed on Wednesday the key despicable methods used by US intelligence agencies in cyber espionage and theft. It also pointed out that the US' infiltration of Huawei headquarters' servers can be traced back to 2009. Despite this, Washington has been attacking Huawei and falsely claiming that Huawei poses a threat to US "national security." Such behavior, characterized by "thief crying stop thief," is a typical American hegemonic behavior.

The US has a notorious track record in the field of cybersecurity. According to MSS, the US intelligence agencies, with their powerful arsenal of cyberattack weapons, have been monitoring, stealing secrets, and launching cyberattacks on multiple countries, including China. The US government, citing national security reasons, forcefully implanted backdoors into the devices, software, and applications of relevant technology companies through acts such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. By using methods like embedded code and vulnerability attacks, the US achieved global data monitoring and theft, leveraging the influence of global technology companies. But even in this situation, FBI Director Chris Wray shamelessly claimed on Monday that Beijing has a cyber espionage program so vast that it is bigger than all of its major competitors combined. The US, relying on the trick of a thief crying stop thief, attempts to distort the truth, confuse the public, and portray itself as a "victim of cyberattacks." Ultimately, the US aims to smear and suppress whoever it deems as opponents and establish permanent cyber hegemony.

In the process of suppressing and sanctioning Chinese tech companies, the US most frequently uses the excuse of protecting "national security." However, the reality is: It is the US that began to invade Huawei headquarters' servers and carry out continuous monitoring back to 2009. Washington, on one hand, has endangered China's national security by hacking Chinese tech companies, on the other, it has repeatedly suppressed Huawei by restricting chip exports under the pretext of "national security." 

Not only does the US exclude various products from Huawei, including telecommunications equipment, but it also requires its allies to exclude Huawei equipment from their 5G network construction. It claims that Huawei equipment may threaten the network security of these countries, particularly in terms of military communication security. The world is witnessing unprecedented technological injustice as the US mobilizes its allied countries to attempt to "strangle" Chinese high-tech company Huawei. It now turns out that Huawei is the victim of US hacking.   

The establishment of a cyber arsenal by the US reflects a very important security concept. It is that in the most essential elements of national power, the US must be in an absolute dominant position and must be in a position that no other country can match. This applies to the economic aspect, and it also applies to the cyber field. This is an inherent behavioral pattern for the US.

Facing such a situation, what should China do? One approach is to strengthen its own capacity building in the cyber security field, and it needs to accelerate development as much as possible. The other is to expose to the maximum extent the destructive actions of the US in this field toward the world, the global community, China, US allies and even American citizens. Let more people in the world understand how the US operates, and how despicable and disgraceful it is.

The US' malpractices in cyberattacks and surveillance are too numerous to count. The various actions of the US are aimed at pushing the world toward "permanent digital hegemony" for the US. The US is the global enemy of cyber security, yet it pretends to be the "guardian" of international cyber security. Its domineering and hypocritical nature has been exposed and condemned by the world.

Recently, India and Canada have been caught in a fierce diplomatic row regarding the alleged assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian Sikh leader and activist of the Khalistan movement. Canada's accusation that India may have been involved in the alleged assassination has led to tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions between the two countries and sent relations between them plunging.

As the diplomatic dispute between India and Canada continues to escalate, the US has adopted a very "low-key" and subtle attitude and position, reflecting its lack of control and mediation over ally and partner issues. The US only expressed "deep concern" through a spokesperson from the White House National Security Council. 

The wording was relatively vague and restrained, supporting Canada's thorough investigation and calling for India's cooperation in the relevant investigation. 

For a long time, American scholars have repeatedly criticized the US government for turning a blind eye to the "human rights violations" committed by the Indian military and police in the Indian-controlled Kashmir region, the expansion of Hindu nationalism within India, and the suppression of minority sects - all due to geopolitical considerations to win over India and contain China. 

Other members of the "Anglo-Saxon family," such as the UK and Australia, followed US suit to convey concerns at senior levels to India. The US, through its public statements, aims to both alleviate the discontent within the "Anglo-Saxon clique" and prevent Canada, a staunch ally, from turning its anger toward the US. 

With the unfolding diplomatic turmoil, the Biden administration will be increasingly compelled to publicly support Canada, a member of the "Anglo-Saxon clique" and a traditionally obedient ally to the US. However, considering the realpolitik perspective, the US views India as a high-value partner in forming an anti-China coalition and is unwilling to openly criticize India. The core of current US foreign policy is focused on containing China and preserving US global hegemony, necessitating a conciliatory approach toward India.

From the perspective of US strategic behavior, the US generally prefers its allies and partners to maintain "tension" to a certain extent to underscore the US' "indispensable" value and its role as an "offshore balancer" and "behind-the-scenes arbitrator." It is unlikely that the US will allow the India-Canada conflict to continue escalating or spiral out of control without seeking the opportune moment for intervention. 

The US may use both public displays of support and behind-the-scene mediation to promote a "soft landing" for the India-Canada dispute in a discreet manner, reassuring old "Anglo-Saxon friends" while signaling to India that they have the means to influence Indian actions.

The India-Canada diplomatic crisis undoubtedly highlights the fact that the US alliance system is far from being monolithic. Members' positions are unequal, and rights and obligations are unbalanced, leading to hidden agendas and making it challenging for the US to "manage its little brothers." 

With the decline of US comprehensive national power and limited diplomatic resources, the US no longer has the ability to dictate terms to its allies, let alone to a traditionally non-compliant India, which has historically emphasized "strategic autonomy."

The issue has become more complicated as the US ambassador to Canada revealed that information shared by members of an intelligence-sharing alliance was part of what Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used to make public allegations of the Indian government's possible involvement in the assassination of a Sikh Canadian, according to CTV on Saturday. 

How it will influence the Canada-India spat remains to be seen. However, regardless of how the India-Canada diplomatic dispute is resolved, the aftermath is likely to linger for some time, potentially casting a shadow over mutual trust and warmth between the US and India.

Recently, there has been a rampant surge of negative reports targeting the Chinese economy throughout the Western media. However, closer examination of these reports shows that many of them are self-contradictory and lack any form of coherence. Their so-called "serious" analysis and arguments about China's economy are actually a mix of manipulating numbers, selectively blind and false narratives, and nothing but another round "China collapse" hype, which is doomed to fail.

For starters, some Western media commentators intensively exaggerate certain issues in the Chinese economy, such as the short-term investment downturn and slowing consumption growth caused by the structural adjustment of the real estate industry and debt held by local governments. They repeatedly claim that China's economic slowdown poses risks to the global economy, while hyping that the continuous upgrading of Chinese industries and China's increasing share of global trade as a "threat" to their own economies.

Western media has been pushing the "China collapse theory" for a long time. After China's economy surpassed Japan's to become the second-largest economy in 2010, the "China threat theory" had raised its voice. But Western naysayers have always been unable to answer the contradiction in their narratives: If China's economy is really heading toward a cliff as claimed, which means the gap between China's economy and that of the US will only widen, why should Western media worry about the so-called threat from China?

The reality is that even in the face of multiple challenges, China's economic development in high-tech industries such as new-energy vehicles, large aircraft, and shipbuilding continues to show strong momentum. These industries were previously dominated by developed countries, and as China accumulates experience and expertise in these sectors, its overall supply chain advantage has indeed put pressure on some Western countries in economic competition but its contributions to facilitating global trade are tremendous and cannot be ignored.

The back-and-forth between the "China collapse theory" and the "China threat theory" actually reflects the contradictory misconceptions of the Chinese economy by Western media, which may also be influenced by the US' geopolitical game against China.

Furthermore, Western media often claim to be professional and impartial, and use data to support their arguments. However, they only select data that serves their biased viewpoints.

Some Western media reports claim that China's economic growth is slowing down while the US economy is thriving. In reality, measuring the true state of an economy requires a wide range of data from different dimensions, rather than just one or two surface-level indicators. For example, China's social electricity consumption - an important economic indicator - has maintained steady growth this year, reflecting steady economic recovery. On the other hand, in the US, the core indicator of social electricity consumption has not increased.

There are some reports in Western media outlets that selectively or intentionally choose to highlight negative news about the Chinese economy while completely ignoring positive developments. This creates a false impression that the Chinese economy is on the verge of "collapse," undermining foreign investors' confidence in China and driving global private capital toward the US.

These reports selectively overlook the Chinese government's determination to forge ahead with short-term adjustments in the real estate and local debt sectors in order to maintain long-term sustainable economic development.

In the context of the US' intensifying containment on China, whenever the Chinese economy faces challenges, these "China collapse theories" resurface. However, presenting facts and reasoning is the best way to debunk such ill-intentioned slandering. The real outlook of the Chinese economy is not reflected by the views held by a handful of anti-China Western politicians, but by foreign governments and businesses' actions toward Chinese market.

Just take a look at how US officials and executives of US companies are eager to visit China and the establishment of economic working groups between China and the US. If the Chinese economy were truly heading toward a "collapse" would the US officials and businesses still pay such attention to the Chinese market? Look at Washington's attitude, and people will have the answer regarding the real condition and outlook for the Chinese economy.

The sudden large-scale attack by the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) on Israel has sent shockwaves throughout the Middle East and the world.

Hamas has demonstrated remarkable secrecy and executed a sudden and powerful attack, catching Israel's Mossad and the US Central Intelligence Agency off guard. Not only did Hamas launch thousands of rockets, but they also conducted large-scale infiltration into territory controlled by Israel. In the eyes of the US and Israel, Hamas is seen as a "ragtag" band of terrorists, but their ability to organize such a massive operation without leaking any information is highly impressive and challenging.

Israel has suffered significant losses this time, with at least 100 people killed on the first day and approximately 900 injured. Moreover, videos have been released by Hamas showing captured Israeli soldiers. Hamas announced they captured the Israeli Army commander, Nimrod Aloni. Additionally, around 50 Israelis have been taken hostage, making these captives and hostages bargaining chips in the hands of Hamas. This situation is unprecedented in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel is likely to carry out retaliation actions that go beyond airstrikes, and a ground offensive is highly possible. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already announced that "our enemies will pay an unprecedented price." However, Israel will face challenges in targeting effectively because Hamas is not the same as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) of the past; they excel in urban guerrilla warfare with high flexibility. Besieging Hamas, as Israel did in Lebanon with PLO in 1982, will be difficult, and extensive bombings may harm many civilians, leading to international condemnation. Therefore, how Israel conducts its operations, from planning to execution, presents a significant challenge.

Many people ask why Hamas launched a comprehensive attack at this time. What triggered this attack is most likely the recent continuous small-scale conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians. Hamas wants to "settle the score" with Israel. However, from a strategic perspective, this is a decisive resistance by the Palestinians against the continuous development of the Middle East situation toward sacrificing Palestinian interests. During the Donald Trump era, the US shifted from mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a more explicit tilt toward Israel. In addition, more and more Arab countries are reconciling with Israel. Currently, the US is pushing for the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Palestinians cannot defeat Israel on their own, but they need to "create a scene" to break the current situation in the Middle East.

As long as there is conflict between Israel and Palestine, the vast majority of Arabs in the Middle East will naturally sympathize with the Palestinians. Emotionally, they cannot lean toward Israel, which will put pressure on Arab governments in the Middle East that hold a moderate attitude toward Israel.

Regarding the Middle East issue, there are different opinions. Overall, Israel wants to maintain a peace based on the existing reality. In the past, the entire Arab world supported the Palestinians in fighting against Israel, but now the Palestinians are almost fighting alone. The Palestinians are quite pitiful. Although the State of Palestine has been established and recognized by many countries, Palestinians' land is still occupied by Israel, and their sovereignty is incomplete. A large number of Palestinians live in refugee camps. They are a vulnerable group in the international community, and their grievances and anger are much greater than those of the powerful Israelis.

According to multiple foreign media reports, on October 10, local time in India, law-enforcement agencies arrested four industry executives, including an employee of the Chinese smartphone manufacturer Vivo, in a case of alleged money laundering. Vivo stated on Wednesday to Chinese media, "Vivo in India strictly adheres to local laws and regulations. We are closely monitoring the recent investigation and will take all possible legal measures to address it."

Many people's first reaction to this news was that India is once again targeting foreign companies operating in the country, especially those from China. This reaction is quite real because such incidents occur very frequently, and people have seen through what is really happening. India has worn the label of the "graveyard for investments" many years, and it seems to have become accustomed to it and doesn't want to take it off. However, wearing this label is not really a good thing for India, but it's ugly.

It is evident that since the border conflict between China and India in June 2020, Indian authorities have significantly increased their hostility against Chinese companies, with Chinese smartphone companies bearing the brunt. From making accusations and threats, conducting sudden office searches, freezing funds, to the recent arrests, India's crackdown actions against Chinese companies have been escalating step by step. The behavior is becoming increasingly unsightly, and is incongruent with India's aspirations for a global major power position and image.

People with some knowledge of India are well aware that India's legal and regulatory framework is as intricate as a labyrinth. Any slight oversight can lead to inadvertent violations, often resulting in widespread non-compliance and selective enforcement. This complexity provides a convenient tool for Indian authorities to extort foreign companies. However, it must be pointed out that in recent years, India has leveled numerous allegations against Chinese companies, yet ultimately found no evidence. It is possible that India aims to use such disturbances to force Chinese companies into unnecessary concessions and compromises.

India has indeed succeeded on numerous occasions, and this is probably the main reason it continues to do so tirelessly. The Financial Times Chinese edition published an article in September, which candidly pointed out that looking back at the history of foreign companies' development in India, it is not an exaggeration to say that it is indeed a history filled with blood and tears.

According to data from the Indian government, from 2014 to 2021, 2,783 multinational companies and their subsidiaries closed their businesses and operations in India. The number of multinational companies registered in India decreased from 216 in fiscal year 2014 to 63 in fiscal year 2021. Many multinational companies, including Metro AG, Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen, eventually chose to withdraw from the Indian market. The actual number is probably more than that. The poor and volatile business environment in India is a consensus among almost all foreign companies operating in India.

People have summarized India's tactics, which involve initially offering some benefits or promising prospects to foreign capital in order to lure foreign companies to invest in India. Once these foreign companies have established a foundation and achieved certain benefits in India, especially when India has learned a little from imitating them, the Indian authorities use various means to effectively extort them, leaving foreign companies in a dilemma. If it weren't for being unable to bear it anymore, how could those multinational companies endure the pain of giving up such a large market like India? This may make India arrogant, giving it some short-term benefits, but it will inevitably cause long-term damage to India's national interests and act as a ceiling that hinders India's modern economic development. We advise India not to lose sight of the bigger picture for small gains.

After the Modi government came to power, it ambitiously launched the "Make in India" campaign, aspiring to make India a global manufacturing hub. In the past two years, the US' suppression and containment of Chinese companies, coupled with the Western media's hype about "shifting manufacturing from China to India," have made some Indians a bit arrogant. In reality, India is far from achieving this ambition. It is certain that India cannot support its domestic mobile phone industry by targeting Chinese smartphone enterprises. In the era of economic globalization, companies can only truly grow and strengthen through full competition. Driving away Chinese smartphones would bring more harm than benefits to India. In fact, without the support of the Chinese industrial chain, it would be difficult for India's smartphone industry to grow, and the development of India's manufacturing industry would also be hindered.

Lastly, in the face of unreasonable demands, malicious harassment, and repeated extortion, Chinese companies will never be soft targets that can be manipulated. They should stand firm without fear and defend their legitimate rights and interests. India's bullying of Chinese companies not only fails to prove its strength and power but also reveals its inner fragility and lack of confidence, once again demonstrating that India is far from being a mature and investment-friendly market.