Price: [price_with_discount]
(as of [price_update_date] – Details)
[ad_1]
Red lady papaya seeds taiwan 786 best 50 seeds haibrid seller
high quality papaya seeds
Hybrid papaya seeds
[ad_2]
#Red #lady #papaya #seeds #taiwan #seeds #haibrid #seller
[ad_1]
LONDON — “Back to her old self again” was how one erstwhile colleague described Liz Truss, who made her return to the U.K.’s front pages at the weekend.
That’s exactly what Rishi Sunak and his allies were afraid of.
Truss, who spent 49 turbulent days in No. 10 Downing Street last year, is back. After a respectful period of 13 weeks’ silence, the U.K.’s shortest-serving prime minister exploded back onto the scene with a 4,000-word essay in the Sunday Telegraph complaining that her radical economic agenda was never given a “realistic chance.”
In her first interview since stepping down, broadcast Monday evening, she expanded on this, saying she encountered “system resistance” to her plans as PM and did not get “the level of political support required” to change prevailing attitudes.
While the reception for Truss’s relaunch has not been exactly rapturous — with much of the grumbling coming from within her own party — it still presents a genuine headache for her successor, Sunak, who must now deal with not one but two unruly former prime ministers jostling from the sidelines.
Boris Johnson is also out of a job, but is never far from the headlines. Recent engagements with the U.S. media and high-profile excursions to Kyiv have ensured his strident views on the situation in Ukraine remain well-aired, even as he racks up hundreds of thousands in fees from private speaking engagements around the world.
Truss and Johnson have, typically, both opted for swifter and more vocal returns to frontline politics than many of their forerunners in the role.
“Most post-war prime ministers have been relatively lucky with their predecessors,” says Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary, University of London. “They have tended to follow the lead of [interwar Conservative PM] Stanley Baldwin, who in 1937 promised: ‘Once I leave, I leave. I am not going to speak to the man on the bridge, and I am not going to spit on the deck.’”
Such an approach has never been universal. Ted Heath, PM from 1970-74, made no secret of his disdain for his successor as Tory leader Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher in turn “behaved appallingly” — in Bale’s words — to John Major, who replaced her in Downing Street in 1990 after she was forced from office.
But more recent Tory PMs have kept a respectful distance.
David Cameron quit parliament entirely after losing the EU referendum in 2016, and waited three years before publishing a memoir — reportedly in order to avoid “rocking the boat” during the ongoing Brexit negotiations.
And while Theresa May became an occasional liberal-centrist thorn in Boris Johnson’s side, she did so only after a series of careful, low-profile contributions in the House of Commons on subjects close to her heart, such as domestic abuse and rail services in her hometown of Maidenhead.
“You might expect to see former prime ministers be a tad more circumspect in the way they re-enter the political debate,” says Paul Harrison, former press secretary to May. “But then she [Truss] wasn’t a conventional prime minister in any sense of the word, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that she’s done something very unconventional.”
Truss’s rapid refresh has not met with rave reviews.
Paul Goodman, editor of influential grassroots website ConservativeHome, writes that “rather than concede, move on, and focus on the future, she denies, digs in and reimagines the past,” while Tory MP Richard Graham told Times Radio that Truss’ time in office “was a period that [people] would rather not really remember too clearly.”
One long-serving Conservative MP said “she only had herself to blame for her demise, and we are still clearing up some of the mess.” Another appraised her latest intervention simply with an exploding-head emoji.
But despite Tory appeals for calm, the refusal of Truss and Johnson to lie low remains a serious worry for the man eventually chosen to lead the party after Truss crashed and burned and Johnson thought better of trying to stage a comeback.
Between them, the two ex-PMs have the ability to highlight two of Sunak’s big weaknesses.
While Truss may never live down the disastrous “mini-budget” of last September which sent the U.K. economy off the rails, her wider policy agenda still has a hold over a number of Conservative MPs who believe they have no hope of winning the election without it.
This was the rationale behind the formation last month of the Conservative Growth Group, a caucus of MPs who will carry the torch for the low-tax, deregulatory approach to government favored by Truss and who continue to complain Sunak has little imagination when it comes to supply-side reforms.
Simon Clarke, who was a Cabinet minister under Truss, insisted “she has thought long and hard” about why her approach failed and “posed important questions” about how the U.K. models economic growth in her Telegraph piece.
Other Conservatives have been advocating a reappraisal of the actions of the Bank of England in the period surrounding the mini-budget, arguing that Truss was unfairly blamed for a collapse in the bond market.
But Harrison doubts whether she may be the best advocate for the causes she represents. “There’s a question about whether it actually best serves her interests in pushing back against a strong prevailing understanding of what happened so soon after leaving office.”
Johnson, meanwhile — to his fans, at least — continues to symbolize the star quality and ballot box appeal which they fear Sunak lacks.
One government aide who has worked with both men said Johnson’s strength lay in his “undeniable charisma” and persuasive power, while Sunak, more prosaically, “was all about hard work.”
These apparent deficiencies feed into a fear among Sunak’s MPs that he is governing too tentatively and, as one ally put it recently, needs to rip off the “cashmere jumper.”
It’s been posited that British prime ministers swing back and forth between “jocks” and “nerds” — and nothing is more likely to underline Sunak’s nerdiness than a pair of recently-deposed jocks refusing to shut up.
Unluckily for Sunak, there are at least three big-ticket items coming up which will provide ample ground on which his nemeses can cause trouble.
One is the forthcoming budget — the government’s annual public spending plan, due March 15. Truss and Johnson are unlikely to get personally involved, but Truss loyalists will make a nuisance of themselves if Sunak’s approach is judged to offer the paucity of answers on growth they already fear.
Before that, Truss is expected to make her first public appearance outside the U.K. with a speech on Taiwan which could turn up the heat on Sunak over his approach to relations with China.
One person close to her confirmed China would be “a big thing” for her, and is expected to be a theme of her future parliamentary interventions.
Then there is the small matter of the Northern Ireland protocol, the thorniest unresolved aspect of the Brexit deal with Brussels where tortured negotiations appear to be reaching an endgame.
Sunak has been sitting with a draft version of a technical deal since last week, according to several people with knowledge of the matter, and is now girding his loins for the unenviable task of trying to get a compromise agreement past both his own party and hardline Northern Irish unionists.
A Whitehall official working on the protocol said Johnson “absolutely” had the power to detonate that process, and that “he should never be underestimated as an agent of chaos.”
One option touted by onlookers is for Sunak to attempt to assemble the former prime ministers and ask them to stand behind him on a matter of such huge national and international significance. But as things stand such a get-together is difficult to picture.
At the heart of Johnson and Truss’ actions seems to be an essential disquiet over the explosive manner of their departures.
They appear fated to follow in Thatcher’s footsteps, as Bale puts it — “not caring how much trouble they cause Sunak, because in their view, he should never have taken over from them in the first place.”
[ad_2]
#Rishi #Sunak #haunted #ghosts #prime #ministers
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
[ad_1]
Press play to listen to this article
Voiced by artificial intelligence.
Beijing’s top envoy to the EU on Wednesday questioned the West’s call to help Ukraine achieve “complete victory,” on the eve of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s possible arrival in Brussels.
Fu Cong, the Chinese ambassador to the EU, also criticized the bloc for “erosion” of its commitment on Taiwan, warning “senior officials from the EU institutions” to stop visiting the self-ruled island.
Fu’s provocative comments on Ukraine and Taiwan, two of the most sensitive geopolitical controversies between China and the West, come as Chinese President Xi Jinping is planning a trip to Moscow, according to the Russian government.
Insisting that the Russia-Ukraine “conflict” was merely an “unavoidable” talking point, Fu said Beijing otherwise enjoys a multifaceted “traditional friendship” with Moscow.
“Frankly speaking, we are quite concerned about the possible escalation of this conflict,” Fu said at an event hosted by the European Policy Centre in Brussels. “And we don’t believe that only providing weapons will actually solve the problem.”
“We are quite concerned about people talking about winning a complete victory on the battlefield. We believe that the right place would be at the negotiating table,” Fu added.
His remarks come on the same day as Zelenskyy visits London, his first trip to Western Europe since Russia launched its full-scale invasion almost a year ago. POLITICO reported that Zelenskyy — who according to his aides has never had his calls picked up by Xi, while the Chinese leader has instead met or called Putin on multiple occasions over the past year — was also planning a visit to Brussels on Thursday, before bungled EU communications threw the trip into doubt.
The idea of a “complete victory” for Ukraine has been most vocally supported by Baltic and Eastern European countries. French President Emmanuel Macron has vowed support for “victory” for Ukraine.
But toeing Xi’s line, Fu said the “security concerns of both sides” — Ukraine as well as Russia — should be taken care of.
Fu also dismissed the comparison between Ukraine and Taiwan, both of which face military threats from a nuclear-armed neighbor.
“I must state up front that [the] Ukrainian crisis and the Taiwan issue are two completely different things. Ukraine is an independent state, and Taiwan is part of China,” he said. “So there’s no comparability between the two issues.”
He went on to criticize the EU’s handling of the Taiwan issue.
“Nowadays, what we’re seeing is that there is some erosion of these basic commitments. We see that the parliamentarians and also senior officials from the EU institutions are also visiting Taiwan,” he said.
The European Commission has not publicized any details of its officials’ visit to Taiwan. The European External Action Service, the EU’s diplomatic arm, has not replied to a request for comment.
If the EU signed an investment treaty with Taiwan, Fu said this would “fundamentally change … or shake the foundation” of EU-China relations. “It is that serious.”
[ad_2]
#China #Drop #calls #Ukraines #complete #victory
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
[ad_1]
Press play to listen to this article
Voiced by artificial intelligence.
LONDON — As nations around the world scramble to secure crucial semiconductor supply chains over fears about relations with China, the U.K. is falling behind.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the world’s heavy reliance on Taiwan and China for the most advanced chips, which power everything from iPhones to advanced weapons. For the past two years, and amid mounting fears China could kick off a new global security crisis by invading Taiwan, Britain’s government has been readying a plan to diversify supply chains for key components and boost domestic production.
Yet according to people close to the strategy, the U.K.’s still-unseen plan — which missed its publication deadline last fall — has suffered from internal disconnect and government disarray, setting the country behind its global allies in a crucial race to become more self-reliant.
A lack of experience and joined-up policy-making in Whitehall, a period of intense political upheaval in Downing Street, and new U.S. controls on the export of advanced chips to China, have collectively stymied the U.K.’s efforts to develop its own coherent plan.
The way the strategy has been developed so far “is a mistake,” said a former senior Downing Street official.
During the pandemic, demand for semiconductors outstripped supply as consumers flocked to sort their home working setups. That led to major chip shortages — soon compounded by China’s tough “zero-COVID” policy.
Since a semiconductor fabrication plant is so technologically complex — a single laser in a chip lithography system of German firm Trumpf has 457,000 component parts — concentrating manufacturing in a few companies helped the industry innovate in the past.
But everything changed when COVID-19 struck.
“Governments suddenly woke up to the fact that — ‘hang on a second, these semiconductor things are quite important, and they all seem to be concentrated in a small number of places,’” said a senior British semiconductor industry executive.
Beijing’s launch of a hypersonic missile in 2021 also sent shivers through the Pentagon over China’s increasing ability to develop advanced AI-powered weapons. And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine added to geopolitical uncertainty, upping the pressure on governments to onshore manufacturers and reduce reliance on potential conflict hotspots like Taiwan.
Against this backdrop, many of the U.K.’s allies are investing billions in domestic manufacturing.
The Biden administration’s CHIPS Act, passed last summer, offers $52 billion in subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S. The EU has its own €43 billion plan to subsidize production — although its own stance is not without critics. Emerging producers like India, Vietnam, Singapore and Japan are also making headway in their own multi-billion-dollar efforts to foster domestic manufacturing.
Now the U.K. government is under mounting pressure to show its own hand. In a letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak first reported by the Times and also obtained by POLITICO, Britain’s semiconductor sector said its “confidence in the government’s ability to address the vital importance of the industry is steadily declining with each month of inaction.”
That followed the leak of an early copy of the U.K.’s semiconductor strategy, reported on by Bloomberg, warning that Britain’s over-dependence on Taiwan for its semiconductor foundries makes it vulnerable to any invasion of the island nation by China.
Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of its territory, makes more than 90 percent of the world’s advanced chips, with its Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) vital to the manufacture of British-designed semiconductors.
U.S. and EU action has already tempted TSMC to begin building new plants and foundries in Arizona and Germany.
“We critically depend on companies like TSMC,” said the industry executive quoted above. “It would be catastrophic for Western economies if they couldn’t get access to the leading-edge semiconductors any more.”
Yet there are concerns both inside and outside the British government that key Whitehall departments whose input on the strategy could be crucial are being left out in the cold.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is preparing the U.K.’s plan and, according to observers, has fiercely maintained ownership of the project. DCMS is one of the smallest departments in Whitehall, and is nicknamed the ‘Ministry of Fun’ due to its oversight of sports and leisure, as well as issues related to tech.
“In other countries, semiconductor policies are the product of multiple players,” said Paul Triolo, a senior vice president at U.S.-based strategy firm ASG. This includes “legislative support for funding major subsidies packages, commercial and trade departments, R&D agencies, and high-level strategic policy bodies tasked with things like improving supply chain resilience,” he said.
“You need all elements of the U.K.’s capabilities. You need the diplomatic services, the security services. You need everyone working together on this,” said the former Downing Street official quoted above. “There are huge national security aspects to this.”
Referring to lower-level civil servants, the same person said that relying on “a few ‘Grade 6’ officials in DCMS — officials that don’t see the wider picture, or who don’t have either capability or knowledge,” is a mistake.
For its part, DCMS rejected the suggestion it is too closely guarding the plan, with a spokesperson saying the ministry is “working closely with industry experts and other government departments … so we can protect and grow our domestic sector and ensure greater supply chain resilience.”
The spokesperson said the strategy “will be published as soon as possible.”
But businesses keen for sight of the plan remain unconvinced the U.K. has the right team in place for the job.
Key Whitehall personnel who had been involved in project have now changed, the executive cited earlier said, and few of those writing the strategy “have much of a background in the industry, or much first-hand experience.”
Progress was also sidetracked last year by lengthy deliberations over whether the U.K. should block the sale of Newport Wafer Fab, Britain’s biggest semiconductor plant, to Chinese-owned Nexperia on national security grounds, according to two people directly involved in the strategy. The government eventually announced it would block the sale in November.
And while a draft of the plan existed last year, it never progressed to the all-important ministerial “write-around” process — which gives departments across Whitehall the chance to scrutinize and comment upon proposals.
Two people familiar with current discussions about the strategy said ministers are now aiming to make their plan public in the run-up to, or around, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s March 15 budget statement, although they stressed that timing could still change.
Leaked details of the strategy indicate the government will set aside £1 billion to support chip makers. Further leaks indicate this will be used as seed money for startups, and for boosting existing firms and delivering new incentives for investors.
There is wrangling with the Treasury and other departments over the size of these subsidies. Experts also say it is unlikely to be ‘new’ money but diverted from other departments’ budgets.
“We’ll just have to wait for something more substantial,” said a spokesperson from one semiconductor firm commenting on the pre-strategy leaks.
But as the U.K. procrastinates, key British-linked firms are already being hit by the United States’ own fast-evolving semiconductor strategy. U.S. rules brought in last October — and beefed up in recent days by an agreement with the Netherlands — are preventing some firms from selling the most advanced chip designs and manufacturing equipment to China.
British-headquartered, Japanese-owned firm ARM — the crown jewel of Britain’s semiconductor industry, which sells some designs to smartphone manufacturers in China — is already seeing limits on what it can export. Other British firms like Graphcore, which develops chips for AI and machine learning, are feeling the pinch too.
“The U.K. needs to — at pace — understand what it wants its role to be in the industries that will define the future economy,” said Andy Burwell, director for international trade at business lobbying group the CBI.
There are serious doubts both inside and outside government about whether Britain’s long-awaited plan can really get to the heart of what is a complex global challenge — and opinion is divided on whether aping the U.S. and EU’s subsidy packages is either possible or even desirable for the U.K.
A former senior government figure who worked on semiconductor policy said that while the U.K. definitely needs a “more coherent worked-out plan,” publishing a formal strategy may actually just reveal how “complicated, messy and beyond our control” the issue really is.
“It’s not that it is problematic that we don’t have a strategy,” they said. “It’s problematic that whatever strategy we have is not going to be revolutionary.” They described the idea of a “boosterish” multi-billion-pound investment in Britain’s own fabricator industry as “pie in the sky.”
The former Downing Street official said Britain should instead be seeking to work “in collaboration” with EU and U.S. partners, and must be “careful to avoid” a subsidy war with allies.
The opposition Labour Party, hot favorites to form the next government after an expected 2024 election, takes a similar view. “It’s not the case that the U.K. can do this on its own,” Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy said recently, urging ministers to team up with the EU to secure its supply of semiconductors.
One area where some experts believe the U.K. may be able to carve out a competitive advantage, however, is in the design of advanced semiconductors.
“The U.K. would probably be best placed to pursue support for start-up semiconductor design firms such as Graphcore,” said ASG’s Triolo, “and provide support for expansion of capacity at the existing small number of companies manufacturing at more mature nodes” such as Nexperia’s Newport Wafer Fab.
Ministers launched a research project in December aimed at tapping into the U.K. semiconductor sector’s existing strength in design. The government has so far poured £800 million into compound semiconductor research through universities, according to a recent report by the House of Commons business committee.
But the same group of MPs wants more action to support advanced chip design. Burwell at the CBI business group said the U.K. government must start “working alongside industry, rather than the government basically developing a strategy and then coming to industry afterwards.”
Right now the government is “out there a bit struggling to see what levers they have to pull,” said the senior semiconductor executive quoted earlier.
Under World Trade Organization rules, governments are allowed to subsidize their semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, the executive pointed out. “The U.S. is doing it. Europe’s doing it. Taiwan does it. We should do it too.”
Cristina Gallardo contributed reporting.
[ad_2]
#Britains #semiconductor #plan #AWOL #splash #billions
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
[ad_1]
Press play to listen to this article
Voiced by artificial intelligence.
Beijing wants to be friends again.
Chinese diplomats are fanning out with a new softer message for international partners and adversaries alike. Gone is the aggressive “wolf warrior” rhetoric. In its place, a warmer tone and a promise of economic cooperation.
Vice Premier Liu He took Beijing’s diplomatic olive branch to the exclusive annual huddle of the global political and business elite in Davos, Switzerland this week. With a heated transatlantic trade spat exploding in panel after panel and melting the Swiss Alpine snow, Liu offered a kinder, gentler Beijing.
“China’s national reality dictates that opening up to the world is a must, not an expediency. We must open up wider and make it work better,” Liu said on Tuesday.
The Chinese charm offensive drove a lot of private conversations in Davos amid the World Economic Forum gathering. Executives are eager to learn more — and as always to explore opportunities in a market as big as China’s. The shift, if real, would signal a return to something the Davos crowd considers more normal: a somewhat predictable, business-friendly Chinese communist leadership, more interested in making money than waging fights against internal critics or outside enemies. The improved economic relationship between China and Australia has fueled such optimism.
Western officials have heard the message as well, but are suspicious that the outreach is more diplomatic sparkle than an indication of substantive changes. They are leery that the growing economic and military threat posed by China remains despite the velvet gloves.
The shift has been gathering steam for weeks after China’s President Xi Jinping offered a warmer tone in his meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden in Bali in November. Xi urged a return to “healthy and stable growth” in bilateral relations.
That has set in motion a cascade of Chinese initiatives seemingly aimed at repairing the harm done by years of “wolf warrior”-style diplomacy; saber-rattling across the Taiwan Strait; a more bellicose military posture in the Indo-Pacific; economic coercion; and high-tech espionage.
China’s Foreign Ministry is rolling out a rhetorical red carpet for U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit in early February. Europe is bracing for a multi-country diplomacy spree by former Foreign Minister Wang Yi. On Wednesday in Zurich, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s meeting with Liu reaped an invitation to visit China “in the near future.” And the Chinese Foreign Ministry signaled gentler public messaging by banishing pugnacious spokesperson Zhao Lijian to the bureaucratic backwater of the ministry’s Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs last week.
Western officials still have their guard up, though — particularly since Chinese diplomats were until recently issuing outright threats to their host countries.
“We are seeing a warmer Beijing that’s keen to talk about a business-as-usual approach, and there are fewer wolf warrior narratives,” an EU official told POLITICO on condition of anonymity because he isn’t authorized to speak on the record. “However, a softer face doesn’t necessarily mean a softer heart.”
That skepticism springs from the fact that Beijing isn’t matching its rhetorical expressions of bilateral goodwill with any substantive policy shifts. China’s “no limits” alignment with Russia continues even after Moscow’s war on Ukraine and record numbers of Chinese military aircraft regularly menace Taiwan. Beijing denies its well-documented abuses against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang and continues what the U.S. calls “unfair trade practices” that sustain billions of dollars of U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports.
There are also suspicions that China is seeking to prevent the imposition of additional crippling U.S. export restrictions on high-technology items such as semi-conductors — and slow down or derail U.S. efforts to persuade its allies to do likewise.
“Xi wants the American boot off his neck — he can’t stomach any more tech containment or more sanctions and recognizes that a lot of [Beijing’s] foreign diplomacy has backfired and he wants to lower the temperature,” said Craig Singleton, senior China fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Beijing’s uptick in diplomatic outreach aims to “seek a reprieve from Washington’s regulatory assault on China’s tech sector, and then lay the groundwork to stimulate China’s economy after this current COVID wave subsides,” Singleton said.
China is in desperate need of an international image overhaul. The results of a Pew Research survey published in June indicated “negative views of China remain at or near historic highs” in 19 European and Asian countries due to concerns about human rights and perceptions of a growing Chinese military threat. Pew Research Center survey results released in September revealed that 82 percent of Americans in 2022 had “an unfavorable opinion of China,” an increase from 76 percent the previous year.
Beijing’s change in tone reflects its alarm at the Biden administration’s success in rallying international support for his China-countering Indo-Pacific Strategy. That has included arch-rival Japan’s embrace of closer defense ties with the U.S. underwritten by a multibillion-dollar investment in Tokyo’s military.
The ruling Chinese Communist Party’s sense of vulnerability is heightened by China’s raging COVID outbreak and an economy pummeled by three years of lockdown linked to the country’s now-defunct zero-COVID policy. “There’s recognition [in Beijing] that — wait a minute, the U.S. is not going anywhere, it is still a major geopolitical power — and so China has to reengage with the United States,” said Victor Shih, an expert in Chinese elite politics at the University of California, San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy.
But old habits die hard. Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng, the incoming Chinese ambassador to the U.S., accused the Biden administration of “besieging China through geopolitics such as the Indo-Pacific Strategy,” in a speech on Monday. And besides Zhao’s removal from the Foreign Ministry press briefing platform, Xi hasn’t fired or demoted any senior “wolf warrior” diplomats, points out Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
EU officials in Brussels are preparing for a visit by Wang, the former Chinese foreign minister who has been promoted into the 24-person Politburo, the Communist Party’s ruling body, to oversee foreign affairs.
But Wang faces an uphill struggle in convincing Europe of a shift in China’s diplomatic settings. The EU is angered by Xi’s close relationship with Moscow despite Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. In response, European leaders have started exploring the diversification of sources of key imports, including those from China.
In conversations with their European counterparts, Beijing officials and diplomats have adopted the tactic of highlighting recent transatlantic disputes to try to persuade the Europeans that the U.S. — even after the Donald Trump era — remains an untrustworthy ally.
“They like to repeat the U.S. ‘gains’ in the Russian war against Ukraine, as well as the IRA,” another European official said, referring to the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which is seen by many Europeans as a protectionist policy unfavorable to EU businesses. China claims that the U.S. military-industrial complex stands to gain from the war, while Europe suffers more from the energy crisis than the U.S.
Beijing is also reaching out to traditional allies in the U.S. business community to amplify its more benign messaging. Wang sat down in Beijing last month with John Thornton, former Goldman Sachs president and the current executive chair of Barrick Gold Corporation. That meeting signaled that “China is open to dialogue with the United States at all levels,” current Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang tweeted.
Similar outreach to the European business community may fall flat.
“China heavily subsidizes its industry and restricts access to its market for EU companies,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said during the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday. “We need to focus on de-risking rather than decoupling. This means using all our tools to deal with unfair practices.”
But Beijing will hope that persisting with the warmer rhetoric will pay off even if the fundamentals don’t change.
“There are elements of Wall Street and certain constituencies in the U.S. government that are extremely receptive to talk about stability and predictability in the U.S.-China relationship after a very volatile two years,” said Singleton from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “But it’s an illusion.”
Matt Kaminski contributed reporting from Davos, Switzerland.
[ad_2]
#China #turns #charm
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )