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 Some tanks contain sludges; particulates are likely to be stirred up when water is withdrawn from them potentially clogging the filters.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.

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.

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.

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.

China firmly opposes sanctions imposed by the US against certain Chinese entities and individuals with alleged involvement in Iran's development of drones and military aircraft, and it will take the necessary measures to resolutely defend its legitimate rights and interests, a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) said on Tuesday.

Washington's abuse of unilateral sanctions and the practice of "long-arm jurisdiction" disrupts the international trade order and rules, obstructs normal economic and trade exchanges among nations, and harms the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises and individuals, the spokesperson said in a statement on the MOFCOM's website.

The US side should immediately cease its unjust suppression of Chinese enterprises and individuals, the spokesperson urged.

China will take the necessary measures to resolutely safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, the spokesperson said.

On September 19, the US Treasury Department said it would sanction seven individuals and four entities from Iran, Russia, China and Turkey on the grounds of so-called "connection" with Tehran's drone and military aircraft development.

The sanctions deny the people and firms access to any property or financial assets held in the US and prevent US companies and citizens from doing business with them, according to the department.

In March, the US sanctioned five Chinese companies and one individual on groundless allegations they had links with Iran.

The US' extension of jurisdiction to companies registered in China goes against the principles of international norms, Tu Xinquan, dean of the China Institute for WTO Studies at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

"It is unreasonable for a country to impose administrative measures on entities outside its own jurisdiction," Tu said.

In the latest case of long-arm jurisdiction by the US, the Biden administration on Monday imposed new trade restrictions on 11 Chinese, five Russian companies, five Pakistani companies, along with others located in Finland, Oman, Germany, and the United Arab Emirates, accusing some of supplying components to make drones linked with the Ukraine crisis, according to a document released by the US Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security on Monday.

The trade blacklist will make it harder for US suppliers to ship technology to companies on the list.

Tu said that Washington's abuse of state power and technological hegemony to impose sanctions on Chinese companies and hinder their development is becoming increasingly normalized. Yet such sanctions and containment will not restrict the development of Chinese companies, as Huawei is a prime example.

Huawei launched new products ranging from smart screens, the MatePad and watches to the new Harmony OS NEXT system at a highly anticipated event in Shenzhen, South China's Guangdong Province on Monday, making a high-profile comeback to the market amid a reported chip breakthrough and years-long US sanctions.

"The sanctions will only enhance China's resolve and capabilities for technology self-reliance and innovation," Tu noted.

American automaker Ford said on Monday it's pausing construction of a $3.5 billion electric vehicle (EV) battery plant in the US state of Michigan until it is confident it can run the factory competitively, the Associated Press (AP) reported. Although the US government is flexing all of its policy muscles available to suppress China's high-tech industry, US competitiveness in cutting-edge technologies has continued to decline as a result of multiple factors.

Ford's decision comes as the company is in the midst of national contract talks with the United Auto Workers union, which wants to represent workers at battery factories and win them top wages, according to the AP report. Intense competition among global EV manufacturers has unsettled the US automotive industry, which had been a pillar of the US economy, as US automakers are under pressure both at home and abroad. 

On the one hand, competition from international competitors, including Chinese EV makers, poses a challenge to American firms, especially as Chinese companies have accumulated technological and price advantages against the backdrop of fierce competition in the Chinese domestic market. 

On the other hand, deep-seated problems in the US economy, including insufficient labor protection and the widening wealth gap, have erupted in a concentrated manner. The car industry, like other manufacturing industries in the US, is facing increased pressure due to rising production costs.

As reported by the AP in March, Ford's EV business has lost $3 billion before taxes during the past two years. If the US automaker wants to catch up with rivals amid intense international competition, one option for Ford is to collaborate with top Chinese companies. 

Ford in February announced plans to build the plant in Michigan, betting that making the batteries in the US would help it and Chinese partner CATL attract US customers to embrace a lower-cost technology pioneered in China, according to Reuters. Honestly speaking, Ford's cooperation with CATL benefits the development of the US EV industry. However, the sector's survival opportunities are being stifled by politicians in Washington. Republicans in Congress have been probing Ford's battery plant plan over concerns it could leave Ford dependent on Chinese technology. 

As reported by Reuters, Rep. Mike Gallagher said lawmakers were "encouraged to see Ford take a crucial first step to reevaluate its deal" with CATL. "Now, Ford needs to call off this deal for good," he added.

Not only in the EV industry, but also in most high-tech and cutting-edge industries, some people in the US possess an extremely unhealthy and unfair zero-sum competition mentality toward China. However, it is evident that this thinking is counterproductive in promoting the development of domestic US industries.

Apart from Tesla, other American vehicle companies still have a relatively low share in the domestic and international EV markets. Although the US government has devised protectionist measures such as the Inflation Reduction Act, it is still moving slowly in terms of addressing domestic supply chain issues, particularly in the production of batteries.

Washington is working toward a zero-sum competition with China, with American firms serving as victims. What Chinese enterprises need to do is to confront external challenges, continuously enhance their competitiveness, strengthen technological innovation, seize the opportunities created by Washington's zero-sum competition mentality - which has caused difficulties for American enterprises - and continuously strengthen themselves.

China is becoming increasingly competitive in EV manufacturing capacity and technology innovation. Chinese EV brands, such as BYD and NIO, have made significant strides in developing advanced EV technologies, including battery technology and autonomous driving features. 

China holds a superior position in the EV supply chain, with about three-quarters of the world's battery production capacity. Moreover, China houses more than half of the world's processing and refining capacity for lithium, cobalt and graphite, which are essential materials for making EV batteries. 

The West's narrow-minded, zero-sum game mentality has indeed put some pressure on China in the short term, but it cannot fundamentally hinder technological progress. If the US always opts for dirty tricks against China instead of learning how to conduct healthy competition with Chinese enterprises and develop its own economic competitiveness, this will just lead to a larger gap between China and the US.

Chinese tourists are eagerly embarking on their holidays ahead of an unprecedented Mid-Autumn Festival and National Day holidays period, set to commence this Friday. The atmosphere is buzzing with excitement and anticipation, as China gears up for a bustling and vibrant holiday season, which experts said is poised to accelerate China's economic growth in the fourth quarter.

China's railway and highway systems are bracing themselves for an influx of travelers, anticipating record-breaking traffic.

China Railway Shanghai Group Co said the Yangtze River Delta railway has facilitated over 2.5 million passenger trips on Wednesday, the first day of the Golden Week travel rush, a growth of 25 percent compared to the same period in 2019 and expected number of the railway trips to climb to 3 million on Thursday. The national railway is expected to complete 190 million passengers trips during the travel rush.

For road traffic, the Ministry of Transport expected that the number of vehicles hitting the road will reach 66 million on Friday, another record-breaking number.

Meanwhile, scenic spots are preparing for an overwhelming surge in visitors, as the eight-day Golden Week holidays promise to attract an unprecedented number of tourists.

Multiple cities are expected to see record-high tourist arrivals. Beijing is projected to receive 12.83 million tourist visits, a year-on-year increase of 60.8 percent and a 21.9 percent increase compared to the same period in 2019. Chengdu, Southwest China's Sichuan Province expects to welcome over 25 million visits during the Mid-Autumn Festival and National Day holidays, setting a new record for tourist arrivals for Golden Week.

Additionally, the pre-sale box office for the Golden Week holidays has surpassed an impressive 50 million yuan ($6.84 million) threshold as of Thursday morning, showcasing the immense consumption potential of this festive period.

Experts believed that the record-breaking holiday will be a strong proof of China's economic momentum and a significant turning point for consumption.

Wei Jianguo, a former Chinese vice minister of commerce and executive deputy director of the China Center for International Economic Exchanges noted that development of China's economy in 2023 will be a process of wave-like development. He said that the GDP growth in the third quarter could reach around 5 percent, predicting the consumption and economic growth to further accelerate in the fourth quarter.

"I am confident in the development of China's economy and believe that there will be no problem in achieving the growth target of around 5 percent for the year," Wei said.

The EU announced on Wednesday a formal anti-subsidy investigation into China-made electric vehicles (EVs). Analysts said that the probe could escalate into a discriminative "trade war against China's EV industry."

The rise of China's EVs has sparked unease within the EU, as China's competitiveness in the new automobile industry has constantly strengthened, an industry insider told the Global Times on Friday, on condition of anonymity.

"It is worth noting that the investigation was initiated in the absence of a written complaint from the industry in Europe. In other words, it could be seen as a potential trade war initiated by the EU," the insider said.

In recent years, China's EV industry has seen rapid development thanks to its unremitting technological innovation and building up of a complete industrial and supply chain. Chinese EVs have found favor among consumers, including those in Europe.

According to auto consultancy Inovev, 8 percent of new EVs sold in Europe as of September 2023 were imported from China, up from 6 percent in 2022 and 4 percent in 2021.

In 2022, Chinese automakers exported 545,244 new-energy vehicles (NEVs) to Europe, accounting for 48.66 percent of all NEV exports, data from the China Passenger Car Association showed.

According to CleanTechnica, 15 of the world's top 20 best-selling EVs in July were China-made.

The EU's anti-subsidy probe into Chinese NEVs is based on subjective assumptions, lacks sufficient evidence and goes against WTO rules, China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) said on Wednesday, responding to the EU decision to conduct the probe.

"We express strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to the EU decision," the MOFCOM said in a statement posted on its website on Wednesday.

The EU requires negotiations with the Chinese side under extremely short notice and fails to provide effective materials for negotiation, which has seriously infringed on China's rights, according to the MOFCOM.

China urged the EU to exert caution in applying trade remedy measures, considering the big picture of maintaining the stability of global industrial and supply chains and the China-EU comprehensive strategic partnership, the ministry said.

"The EU should encourage deepened cooperation in the new-energy industry, which has NEVs as one of its spearheads, and create a fair, non-discriminatory and predictable market environment for the common development of the China-EU EV industry," the MOFCOM said.

The EU's probe was opposed by the German government and the business community there. German Minister for Digital and Transport Volker Wissing in September rejected possible punitive tariffs as a result of the European Commission's (EC) investigation into Chinese EV industry, according to German newspaper Augsburger Allgemeine.

On September 20, the German Handelsblatt published an article saying that EC President Ursula Von der Leyen's China policy is losing support and her tough stance is intended to win the approval of the US. Such a move would have a negative impact on German auto companies.