The ever-expanding use of US sanctions to regulate the conduct of foreign companies trading in foreign markets has alienated US trading partners and could ultimately unleash a wave of counter-retaliation by foreign governments. Although US politicians and the US media see these sanctions as lawful regulatory instruments rather than weapons of war, they involve a modern form of gunboat diplomacy using coercion rather than legal process to obtain foreign cooperation. US trading partners thus far have found no effective response, but that may soon change, and in ways that will badly damage US interests and erode US power.
At some point, in the absence of US self-restraint, the tables will turn and foreign government adoption of their own coercive measures will create enormous challenges for US and global business. The risk is not only or even largely to the primacy of the US dollar in world trade but rather the ability of US-based and multinational companies to access major markets whose governments at some point will no longer tolerate US encroachment on their sovereignty.
US sanctions programs seek to achieve US foreign policy and political objectives, often without regard to whether other countries share those objectives. For example, when President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, he said the deal was non-binding on him because it was signed by President Obama. The fact that the European powers, China and Russia also had signed it, the UN Security Council had endorsed it, and Iran had not violated it did not deter the Trump Administration from re-imposing and expanding all of the previously waived US sanctions. Under these coercive measures, the Administration has designated or threatened to designate foreign companies as US sanctions targets for engaging in entirely foreign business with Iran that has no connection to the United States.
The US sanctions rules have always applied differently to foreign companies than to US-based and US-owned companies. Since 1995, the so-called primary sanctions against Iran have prohibited the involvement of US persons in nearly all types of Iran-related business. In more recent years, the US government has required even non-US companies to obey the primary sanctions whenever their transactions involve US persons, the US financial system or US-origin goods. However, the US government has no law enforcement jurisdiction over transactions by non-US companies that do not involve any such US elements.
Critics of US sanctions policy often focus on the enormous fines imposed on foreign companies, particularly banks, for violating the primary sanctions, and the risk that such aggressive enforcement tactics will cause a foreign flight from US dollar-based trade and payments. Although that risk is real, the fines relate only to activity within US law enforcement jurisdiction and leave foreign companies free to choose whether to continue transacting with US sanctions targets without involving any US elements and therefore with violating US law.
To overcome this jurisdictional hurdle, when the US government decided, beginning in 2010, that it wanted to deter certain types of entirely non-US business with Iran, it did so by labeling such business as “sanctionable” under so-called secondary sanctions that authorized the designation of foreign companies engaged in such non-US business as US sanctions targets. During the Obama Administration, the secondary sanctions on Iran generally worked in parallel with European and UN sanctions against Iran’s nuclear proliferation drive, culminating in the multilateral negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal. To strike that deal, the Obama Administration waived the secondary sanctions on Iran, while leaving most of the primary sanctions in place.
As a result of the Trump Administration’s restoration and expansion of the secondary sanctions on Iran and use of similar extraterritorial sanctions measures against a wide range of other targets, US sanctions policy now conflicts with European and global norms to an unprecedented degree. Instead of respecting the sovereign right of our trading partners to decide how and with whom their companies cantransact from within their own territory and in their own currency, the US Treasury and State Departments dictate to foreign companies a complex series of sanctions red lines, entirely outside US jurisdiction.
It matters not whether the sanctionable activity involves the US dollar or any other US elements because the US Treasury and State Departments do not need a US jurisdictional hook to put a foreign company on a US sanctions blacklist. Instead, crossing a red line into sanctionable activity can trigger a US sanctions designation of the offending company, prohibiting their involvement in any business that involves US persons or other US elements. Foreign purchases of Venezuelan crude oil, foreign participation in Russian pipeline projects and foreign transactions with literally thousands of persons blacklisted by the US government under a range of sanctions programs, even if unrelated to Iran (or Syria or North Korea),could all trigger a boycott of a foreign company by the US Government, without any need to tie the sanctionable activity to the United States.
Unlike the primary sanctions, which operate within the same legal structure as other US administrative and criminal laws, the secondary sanctions provide Treasury and State nearly complete freedom to strike preemptively against their foreign targets. Although the target can attempt after-the-fact to demonstrate that they did not infringe any sanctions or negotiate a resolution, that process can take years, by which time the US blacklisting often has already put the target out of business.
The impact of a US sanctions designation is supremely powerful because it not only terminates the target’s access to the US economy and US financial system, but also imposes a secondary boycott designed to force foreign firms to choose between business with the target or business with the US. Following the designation, any foreign company that transacts with the blacklisted person, and thereby provides “material assistance” to them, could itself be blacklisted in turn, even if the alleged material assistance has no connection to the United States. Thus, banks and many other companies globally will refuse any new business with, and run in the other direction from, anyone that US Treasury, through its Office of Foreign Assets Control, has put on the so-called Specially Designated Nationals list. Once blacklisted, the US sanctions target finds itself persona non grata not only in the United States, but most of the world.
In fact, the pressure on foreign companies to respect US sanctions red lines and avoid any sanctionable activity is often greatest within their own financial services community. Before providing a large loan or underwriting securities, in any currency, for Asian or European companies, the participating banks typically will require an undertaking from the borrower or issuer not to engage in any sanctionable activity, as defined by the US government. Even Chinese companies that prefer to list their shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, rather than in New York, still need to address their US secondary sanctions risks as part of the listing process.
The extraordinary deterrent effect of the US secondary sanctions contrasts with the historic failure of the Arab League’s long-running secondary boycott of Israel to deter companies in the United States and third countries from Israeli business. This difference is easily explained. First, companies that needed to choose between business with Israel or the countries that boycott Israel often have seen Israel as the greener pasture. Second, the US and many other leading countries prohibited their nationals from supporting the Arab League secondary boycott. As explained by the US Office of Antiboycott Compliance, the US antiboycott rules “have the effect of preventing US firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to US policy.”
The hypocrisy of prohibiting US companies from complying with other countries’ secondary boycotts while threatening to boycott foreign companies for dealing, entirely outside US jurisdiction –with US embargoed countries and/or Specially Designated Nationals– is not the issue here. Hypocrisy in foreign policy is nothing new. Historic international law principles and constraints also have not deterred the expansion in US secondary sanctions. Instead, before either Congress or the Executive Branch will lose their voracious appetite for secondary sanctions, the cost-benefit analysis of these measures in economic and thus political terms will have to change in Washington.
In the current political environment, this change will occur only when foreign countries with sufficient market power impose sufficient counter-measures to make the US reconsider its approach. Thus far, US trading partners, particularly in the EU, have relied primarily on their own version of the US antiboycott rules to threaten their nationals with domestic legal action if they comply with US secondary sanctions. But these counter-measures have failed, for two principal reasons.
First, most multinational companies, particularly in Europe, have no interest in tempting fate by crossing a US sanctions red line. In contrast, they know the domestic antiboycott laws to which they are subject, even if enforced, which they rarely are, would not have anything like the nuclear impact of a US sanctions designation. The EU’s blocking regulation in particular is widely viewed as no more than a political statement. Second, many EU and other foreign companies to which these local antiboycott rules apply can typically justify their withdrawal from and avoidance of Iran, Cuba and other targets of unilateral US sanctions for business reasons, without expressly acknowledging they have done so in response to a US secondary boycott.
In the military realm, to deter a nuclear strike against them or their allies, the world’s major powers have developed their own nuclear deterrents. The strategy of mutually assured destruction has withstood the test of time. Because it has proven to work, the same logic will ultimately prevail in the world of sanctions, led by China.
Last year, China announced that it would create its own “Unreliable Entity List” to punish firms whose actions were harmful to China’s national interests. Although China has not yet put any companies on this list, it presumably would do so if OFAC puts a major Chinese company on the Specially Designated Nationals list and seeks to compel foreign as well as US companies to sever their ties with that Chinese company. Alternatively, China could find other ways to retaliate in kind, with the aim of restricting US access to China’s market sufficiently to match the harmful impact of US secondary sanctions on Chinese firms.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If the retaliatory threat is both credible and commensurate in scope with the sanctions threatened by the US government, the US will have as much to lose as to gain by imposing a secondary boycott. For this reason, the US has yet to impose a secondary boycott on any major Chinese company. Instead, even under President Trump, the actions taken against Chinese companies generally seek to restrict their access to US markets and US technology under US trade, investment and export control laws; i.e., various forms of primary boycott.
In such cases, the US requires foreign companies to exclude all or some US elements from their dealings with the Chinese target company, but does not threaten them with retaliation for their entirely non-US business with that Chinese company. With the exception of some smaller Chinese companies that the US has listed as Specially Designated Nationals, the US Treasury and State Departments have not threatened to blacklist foreign companies for entirely non-US business with any leading Chinese company. Moving in that direction against China would appear certain to trigger swift retaliation and thus mutually assured economic damage.
In contrast, the US Congress has enacted, and President Trump has implemented, a broad range of secondary sanctions against Russia intended to deter foreign companies from entirely non-US dealings with targeted Russian persons, companies and energy projects. Although not comparable in either scope or extent of actual use to the US secondary sanctions against Iran, the ones on Russia have succeeded in deterring a range of foreign investment in and foreign business with Russia that the previously-imposed US and EU primary sanctions had failed to accomplish.
Although Russia has threatened to retaliate in kind, its economy is far smaller than China’s. In 2015, when Russia put 60 US politicians on its version of a sanctions list in response to the initial wave of US sanctions against Russia, the late Senator John McCain quipped “I guess this means my spring break in Siberia is off, my Gazprom stock is lost and my secret bank account in Moscow is frozen.”A tooth for an eye has never provided an effective deterrent.
Apart from China’s credible defensive capability, it also has the ability to play offense. If the US can retaliate against foreign companies for their entirely non-US dealings with US sanctions targets, what is to stop China from doing the same to US and other non-Chinese companies in response to their dealings with Taiwan or other future targets of Chinese sanctions? What is to stop India from imposing a secondary boycott on Pakistan or Turkey on Cyprus? The US can use its antiboycott law to prohibit US companies from cooperating, but only at the cost of losing their business with the boycotting country.
In sum, relying on secondary boycotts to achieve US policy objectives is dangerous not only because it invites retaliation but also because it invites imitation. The US therefore should use them cautiously rather than capriciously, recognizing that at some point the balance will tip and the costs might quickly begin to outstrip the perceived benefits.
In particular, how much longer will the EU tolerate US insistence that EU companies abandon entirely non-US business with US sanctions targets before the EU adopts its own version of China’s Unreliable Entity List and directs EU companies to resist US pressure? Like China, EU counter-retaliation could be both credible and commensurate in terms of the costs imposed on US interests. EU self-restraint to date reflects its preference for rules-based diplomacy, but when that enables the US to encroach European sovereignty with impunity, even the EU at some point, if pushed too hard, will have to respond in kind.
If and when we reach the tipping point, what the world sees as US sanctions bullying will be met with a jab in America’s eye by a major US trading partner rather than foreign subservience. Various potential scenarios come to mind. Let’s assume a new and potentially more rational leadership takes the helm in North Korea, and South Korea as well as China quickly offer trade and investment even before any major and verifiable concessions by Pyongyang. Let’s further assume the US, backed by Japan, rejects any such premature concessions and threatens to use its existing secondary sanctions against North Korea to blacklist any South Korea or Chinese company that supports their own government’s strategy of economic engagement. When the foreign policy and domestic political stakes are that high, resistance to US secondary sanctions not only by China but also South Korea becomes inevitable, creating enormous risk of miscalculation, counter-retaliation and destabilizing after-shocks.
The effectiveness of US secondary boycotts to date appears to have created a misplaced confidence in Washington that ever-expanding use will not diminish their effectiveness or harm US interests. Rather than continue along the current path, inciting US trade partners to copy our own tactics to our detriment as well as theirs, the US should develop a more restrained and strategic approach to preserve the usefulness of sanctions. Coordinating US sanctions policies with America’s closest allies rather than trampling on their sovereignty would be a helpful starting point.
New American extremist armed movements calling for democracy
The American interior has witnessed in recent years (the growth, spread and revival of a number of new armed extremist ideological movements in the American interior), which have come to challenge the authority and orders of the American government similar to its American communist counterpart in previous periods, and aims for a “new revolution” in the face of the American authorities.
The outbreak of Coronavirus pandemic in the American interior has also caused the strengthening of the strength of these American armed movements, as well as the growth of “new armed extremist movements” that challenge the authority and orders of the American government similar to its former American communist counterpart, and the map of these movements and their goals can be traced, as follows:
The emergence of the most dangerous and most important armed movement called the “Boogaloo Movement” against the American government: due to the restrictions imposed due to the outbreak of the virus, it fueled the “Boogaloo Movement” against the American government. And what is new in the “American Boogaloo movement” is its armed tactic, and its “publicly” carrying of rifles and wearing tactical military clothing, and it was the beginning of their mobilization in the US state of “Hawaii” and in the state capital’s buildings to protest against the closure orders, due to the outbreak of (Covid-19). It is the distinctive of the “military appearance” of the “Boogaloo Movement” against the US government, which attracts the most attention. It threatens to wage “civil war”, as an extremist movement that uses “violent, not peaceful armed protests” against the orders of the American state, and has arisen due to the social problems caused by the pandemic to spread violent messages against Washington. The start of its launch was in April 2020, when armed demonstrators went out in separate organized protests in front of government buildings in (Concord and New Hampshire). The point worth noting and analyzing here is that the extremist “Boogaloo” movement is attracting many American youth daily. One of its affiliates said in a post on Facebook that the term “Boogaloo” began as a funny thing, but it evolved into a deeper symbol of “Boogaloo Movement”, by calling for the freedom against the decisions of the American authorities.
On the other hand, the (Three Percenters Militia Movement) appeared in the month of April 2020: those who organized a march at “Olympia headquarters” in the capital, Washington, and the participants in the gathering were keen to wear “Hawaiian shirts” to support the demands of the “Boogaloo extremist armed movement”.
In May 2020, a third extremist movement appeared in the United States, called the “Blue Igloo movement”: which began with a demonstration in Raleigh, North Carolina, and promoted itself on Facebook, and the movement entered into some “armed confrontations” with the state police.
A fourth movement appeared, consisting of armed members called the extremist “Liberty Militia movement”: they are mainly deployed in the state of “Michigan”.
A new fifth movement appeared called “The Rhett E. Boogie Group”: by advocating on Facebook forums, this led to the launch of a movement which invited “Gretchen Whitmer” as a representative of the “Democratic Party”, to address these violent threats.
In March 2020, there were also demonstrations related to the “Neo-Nazis movement” in the US state of “Missouri”: one of those belonging to this extremist movement was killed when the “Federal Bureau Investigations agents” FBI tried to arrest him, for trying to bomb a hospital in the “Kansas City” area. After the outbreak of the Corona virus, the “Neo-Nazis movement” announced that its new goal was to “start a revolution” in the country.
During the month of May 2020, a white supremacist group, known as: the “Associates of Bradley Bunn” appeared in the state of “Colorado”: which prompted the “US Department of Homeland Security” to issue an alert to it. And “Bradley Benn” is a former US Army soldier, who was arrested on May 1, 2020, after the “Federal Bureau Investigations agents” FBI found that there were “four pipe bombs” in his home in Loveland, Colorado, which led some to sympathize with him for his courage, and they formed a movement in his name.
The other armed prominent group in the USA, which has been revived and unified under a given new name of the “White Supremacist Groups”, which has been active since 2019, has been revived, and has declared itself as (an extreme right-wing movement), and includes a group of armed militias.
In general, it is possible to observe and track the goals of these American armed movements and increase their activities, especially after the outbreak of the Corona epidemic and the poor economic conditions in the American interior, and made the beginning through social media, where one of them wrote: “Many individuals are very upset with the way that the USA is managed and the other passed laws that are criminalised to the law-abiding citizens”. Perhaps what is new in the thinking of these American extremist armed movements, according to the study of the “Extremism Program at George Washington University”, is that their discourse goes beyond discussions about combating restrictions, which many protesters describe as “tyranny” to talk and violent radical discourse about “Killing FBI agents” or police officers “to start a war”.
From here, we understand the existence of (a real state of conflict and undeclared polarization within the American interior itself, whose features appeared between the movements of the left and the right and resulted in the carrying of arms and resistance to the American authorities themselves), and this internal American conflict became clear between (the forces of the left and the American right) after the failure of the former President “Trump” in the period of the previous US presidential elections in November 2020, and perhaps this period will be the one (which will establish the next American period and will determine the extent of its democracy globally and even how to deal with rebellious groups and sectors and the opposition of the American people themselves who reject the internal American policies and their undemocratic approach), and it will expose the global American democracy itself to (face difficult tests in front of the minorities who are expected to dominate the American political scene by 2040 according to the expectations of American sociologists, anthropologists and humanists), hence the important question will come, regarding:
(How will the United States of America present itself to the world less than 20 years from now? Especially, in the presence of a real undeclared internal conflict over the American power and governance circles, which threatens the American concept that promotes the idea of democracy and human rights from the narrow American perspective)?!
The Turkey and the U.S. Holiday Season
Guess! Forty-six million turkeys are eaten in the US over the course of a year, a month or a certain day? The surprising answer (or maybe not) is the latter … on the Thanksgiving holiday. It is celebrated in the US on the fourth Thursday in November. Another 22 million are devoured over Christmas and 19 million perish at Easter.
We are a carnivorous culture. If 46 million turkeys stand side-by-side, they make a line some 7,000 miles long or about twice the distance between the East and West coasts. Despite all this, turkey is only the fourth source of protein in the U.S. coming in as it does after chicken, beef and pork.
Nevertheless, almost 1.4 billion pounds of turkey were consumed at Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter — to the 46 million Thanksgiving turkeys one can add 22 million for Christmas and 19 million for Easter (2011 figures). About a third of the turkeys are eaten during the holidays and two-thirds over the rest of the year. It adds up to about 230,000 birds in total.
That is the front end for turkeys. But not all the turkey is eaten. The carcass and some of the meat ends up in trash cans. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates a third of global food is wasted. That figure coincides with what the US Department of Agriculture projects for turkeys — 35 percent goes into garbage cans and ends up in landfills.
The average weight of a turkey is 15 lbs. giving us approximately 690 million pounds for the 46 million consumed during Thanksgiving. It also means 240 million pounds goes to the waste dumps.
Turkey is not the only waste — Americans throw away 25 percent more waste during the approximately month-long holiday season from Thanksgiving to New Year (think of all the gift wraps, Christmas trees, cardboard boxes, ribbons, sticky tape, etc.). On ribbons also, if people in the U.S. reused just 2 feet of holiday ribbon, it would save 38,000 miles of ribbon. And if each family wrapped only 3 gifts in re-used Christmas wrapping paper, the saved paper would be enough to cover 4,500 football fields. All of which might seem to be in the spirit of the grinch that stole Christmas, but the general idea is to think about minimizing waste.
Perhaps all of this is irrelevant in a world in the grip of the covid virus. The essence of holidays lies in the gatherings of friends and relatives, something frowned upon in the age of covid. So, a quiet march to the New Year and a muted “Happy New Year” with a ‘beware of the omicron strain’ under one’s breath.
Such is the world of covid with its frustratingly temporary immunity. Is there a possibility it will eventually become like the common cold, a nuisance with which we learn to live? As it is the latest version i.e. the omicron variant shares its genetic code with the cold virus and is more easily transmissible.
The American Initiative for a “Better World” and its difference with the Chinese Belt and Road
During their summit held at the end of July 2021 in the city of “Cornwall” in Britain, the leaders of the countries (the Group of Seven major economic leaders “G7” led by Washington) have been announced the launch of an ambitious global initiative called “Rebuilding a Better World”. It is internationally, known as:
Build Back Better World (B3W)
The “Rebuilding a Better World” initiative aims to (meet the massive financing requirements for infrastructure needs). The most important differences and distinguishes between (the Chinese initiative for the Belt and Road and the American initiative to build a better world), are highlighted, through:
1) The intense Chinese interest in doing (development initiatives that are not politically conditional, unlike the American tool that sets political goals and conditions as a condition for the work of projects or the provision of loans, as well as China’s interest in infrastructure and community projects), and this is the most obvious and famous reason for the “Belt and Road” initiative, whereas the maps showed China’s roads, railways, and pipelines networks extending with partner countries, in addition to cooperation in (the field of digital technologies, educational and social institutions, and security services), which creates a network of relations that will continue in the future, in contrast to the US case or initiative.
2) We find that while (the leaders of the seven major economic countries neglected to develop long-term strategic plans in their initiative for a better world to serve poor and developing peoples), the vision of the “Belt and Road” has been more clearly manifested through the spread of many other developmental initiatives and the other extensions with it, which include the “Silk Road” for its projects, such as: (The Health Silk Road Initiative to combat “Covid-19”, and the launch of the “Digital Silk” initiative, known as (Information Silk Road).
3) At a time when Washington and its allies ignored the interests of developing countries, China has contributed to (leading the global development initiatives, especially the Healthy Silk Road to help countries affected by the spread of the pandemic), an initiative mentioned for the first time in the (White Book of Chinese Policy in 2015), Chinese President “Xi Jinping” announced officially the “Health Silk Road” that was presented in a 2016 speech delivered by the Chinese President in Uzbekistan, as well as the new road and the most recent Chinese initiative, known as the “Polar Silk Road”, which also known as the “Ice Silk Road”, which stretches across the “North Pole”, it was first highlighted in 2018.
4) In the belief of China to lead global development efforts, in contrast to ignoring the “Better World Initiative”, it was represented in China’s leadership in the field of “climate and environmental governance”, so the Chinese government initiated the launch of the “Green Silk Road Fund”, which was established by Chinese investors to promote (Chinese projects that take into account environmental standards), and the latest and most advanced here is the Chinese announcement of the “Space Silk Road”, which is the development of the Chinese “Beidou” system for artificial intelligence technology, and others.
5) Here, we find that at a time when China’s desire to support and modernize all African and poor countries is increasing, the American initiative, which is alleged to be an alternative to the Chinese plan, has come to China’s interest in projects (the Chinese satellite navigation system), and it is scheduled to be used and developed China as an alternative to GPS services.
6) The American President “Joe Biden” adopted the “Building Better for the World” project, stressing that its mainly focus on the (climate, health, digital sector, and combating social inequality), because the “Belt and Road” initiative – as stated by assistants to US President “Biden” – has transformed from a series of unauthorized projects connected to infrastructure, a cornerstone of Beijing’s foreign policy strategy, and the initiative supported China with raw materials, trade links, and geopolitical influence, so the “White House” wants to engage in projects with greater environmental and labor standards than those funded by China, and with complete transparency regarding financial terms. Perhaps that point raised by Washington towards China comes without (the United States of America presenting concrete evidence of the validity of those accusations to China, as well as Washington’s failure to penetrate deep into the African continent compared to the Chinese side).
7) American reports accuse Beijing of being (the reason for the decline of its influence on the African continent, and the United States faces many obstacles and challenges to regain its influence again in Latin American countries, which considers China as a trading partner and an important and vital investor in the African and Latin region). For example, bilateral trade between Brazil – the largest economy in South America, and China increased from $2 billion in 2000 to $100 billion in 2020. Perhaps this in itself (supports China’s credibility with its development projects to serve African and developing peoples, in contrast to African and Latin rejection, for example, of American influence and penetration in their countries).
8) The most important analytical thing for me is that the relationship of the Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative” with African countries supports “the call of China and Chinese President “Xi Jinping” towards a multilateral and multipolar world”. Therefore, we find that (China’s agreement with these African countries came in their support for multipolarity in the world, which the United States rejects), while African countries and the developing world mainly welcome the “Belt and Road Initiative”, which meets the needs of economic development in their countries, which the alleged American initiative will be unable to meet.
9) It also represents the Chinese initiative for the Belt and Road (a prelude to the China-Pacific cooperation road to link China and Latin America more closely, through the 21st century Maritime Silk Road from China to Latin America, which the United States strongly opposed, which reduces travel time between them, it works on developing infrastructure and connectivity, and investing in port works and ocean corridors between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Which (made the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean consider cooperation with Beijing a huge investment opportunity and a support for economic and social development plans, as well as an improvement in the region’s competitiveness).
10) It is worth noting that what distinguishes (the Chinese initiative for the Belt and Road from the American Better World Initiative, is its “sweeping popularity globally”), especially if we know that more than 100 countries have joined the Beijing initiative, which made it stronger politically and diplomatically. China signed cooperation documents on Belt and Road construction with 171 countries and regions around the world, and the trade value between China and countries along the Belt and Road amounted to about 1.35 trillion dollars in 2020, accounting for 29.1 percent of the total value of China’s foreign trade which (the United States of America will be unable to provide in light of the current economic crisis, unlike China). The investment cooperation between them amounted to about $17.7 billion, and the Chinese Ministry of Commerce stated that the companies of the “Belt and Road” countries have established 4,294 institutions in China, with an investment value of $8.27 billion.
11) and even came (confessions by well-known American bodies of China’s developmental role in confronting the United States of America), for example, a report by the “American Council on Foreign Relations” confirmed that: “Since the launch of the “Belt and Road” initiative in 2013, Chinese banks and companies have funded and the construction of power stations, railways, highways, and ports, as well as communications infrastructure, fiber-optic cables and smart cities around the world, and if the initiative continues to implement its plans, China will be able to stimulate global economic growth, and meet the needs of developing countries for the long term”. This is an American testimony and a clear acknowledgment of the strength of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and its development projects around the world.
12) It remains to be noted here that (the American attempts to put forward alternative development initiatives for the Chinese Belt and Road is a kind of American political competition with China, so the question here is: Why did the United States not provide real development projects over the past long years), so we understand that the Belt Initiative The road is the largest infrastructure program in the world, and indeed it has become an economic and political challenge for Washington. Experts believe that the preoccupation of the United States with its financial and economic crises has contributed greatly to giving China the opportunity to extend its economic and development influence among the countries of the world. The “Rebuilding a Better World” initiative comes among other US initiatives to try to confront and confront China, such as the Ocos Defense Security Agreement with Britain and Australia, as well as the first meeting of the “Quad Quartet” with the leaders of India, Japan and Australia. The “Biden administration” is also seeking to hold bilateral talks with countries in order to promote the American initiative, and recently talks were held with Indian Prime Minister (Narendra Modi), especially since India has refused to join the Belt and Road Initiative due to border disputes with China. Therefore, we understand (the targeting of the United States of America to countries with conflict with China to attract them to its alternative initiative, in contrast to the openness of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative to the whole world).
Accordingly, we arrive at an important analysis that says that the term “rebuilding better in the American sense” ignores and neglects development initiatives to serve the people, a better world, which is (an American political initiative rather than a development one such as the projects of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative). Here it becomes clear to us that the American initiative for a better world appears to be (influenced by the slogans and policies of both US President “Joe Biden” and British Prime Minister “Boris Johnson”), Rebuilding Better is the slogan of the American campaign, but without setting specific agreed plans or a timetable for everyone.
Israeli competition against Egypt in the energy and natural gas sector
Since the success of the (June 30th revolution and the departure of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule in Egypt), then the...
Education Must Come First in Cameroon: Yasmine Sherif calls for an end to attacks on schools
The future of humanity hangs in the balance. Acute threats of conflict, COVID-19, climate change, poverty, displacement, hunger and other...
Importance of Analysis of Major Events of Pakistan
Pakistan in the past 74 years of independence has gone through events some of which have even changed its geography...
Excess salt in soils puts food security at risk
Improper water management, including insufficient supply and poor quality drainage systems, are contributing to excessive soil salinization – a problem...
U.S. nationalism and the arms market sales deals in the Gulf states
The idea of “the feeling of nationalism and heading east to China and Russia among the Egyptian people has risen...
With 1.3 million annual road deaths, UN wants to halve number by 2030
Road accidents are still responsible for 1.3 million annual deaths and 50 million injuries all over the world, but the...
Thailand and Kon La Krueng Co-payment Scheme: A Challenge towards Sustainable Consumption
The COVID-19 has impacted many people around the world, particularly the poor people who are unable to meet their fundamental...
Southeast Asia4 days ago
Ecosystem Restoration: The Answer to Indonesia’s Dilemma
South Asia4 days ago
What ails Modi’s relations with its own people and neighbours?
Middle East4 days ago
International Solidarity Day with the people of Palestine
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Local Wisdom Brings Everybody Towards Sustainability
Eastern Europe3 days ago
Shifting Geography of the South Caucasus
Africa3 days ago
China will donate 1 billion covid-19 vaccines to Africa
Southeast Asia2 days ago
Vietnam’s President Phuc visit to Switzerland and Russia
Middle East3 days ago
Middle Eastern autocrats sigh relief: the US signals Democracy Summit will not change policy