Connect with us


Reason Versus Anti-Reason: America’s Primal Struggle

Avatar photo



The enemy is the unphilosophical spirit which knows nothing and wants to know nothing of truth.”-Karl Jaspers, Reason and Anti-Reason in Our Time (1952)

After the Second World War, Karl Jaspers identified a crucial but neglected bifurcation, one that could best explain the rise of Nazism. Beginning with a general comment about human behavior – “There is something inside all of us that yearns not for reason but for mystery…” – the thoughtful German philosopher proceeded to advance pertinent warnings at far deeper levels. Among other things, Jaspers observed that we must confront the enemies of Reason and Science not only in the “outside world,”[1] but “more dangerously…. inside each one of us.”

               If Jaspers was correct that anti-Reason can inhere in each individual person, in the singular being and not just in the broader society (the macrocosm), it’s time to seek serious explanations and remedies beyond politics. There will, of course, arise various clarifying reasons for citizen bewilderment. Here, as is the case for any multi-layered intellectual quandary, truth may prove counter-intuitive.

               During the incessantly law-violating Trump era in American politics, the United States was never actually “becoming Nazi Germany.” Still, its easily determinable trajectory was both authoritarian and lethal. And though palpably vital differences exist between “then and now,” there were also conspicuous forms of resemblance.

How shall the recent US period of grievous governmental declension best be explained? In part, meaningfully correct answers should be sought “behind the news.”  For example, both the Third Reich and Trump’s presidency thrived upon variously paradoxical juxtapositions of privilege with philistinism. For such a seemingly self-contradictory fusion, the nineteenth century Friedrich Nietzsche (an “existentialist” forerunner of Karl Jaspers) coined a specific term, one he hoped could sometime become universal. This new word of the German philosopher was Bildungsphilister. When expressed in its  lucid and coherent English translation, it signifies “educated Philistine.”[2]

The fearful commonalities are incontestable. As was the case in Germany’s late Weimer Republic years, street-fighters (e.g., Sturmabteilung or SA, Trump’s “Proud Boys,” etc.) made collaborative cause with accomplished professional classes. In the United States, this anti-democratic pattern of mutual support was established before and after the January 6 insurrection. Once again, in 2021 America, the benefits of a higher education proved more-or-less irrelevant to personal integrity.

                Intellectually and linguistically, these are “delicate matters.
Even now, Nietzsche’s Bildungsphilister is a term that could shed useful explanatory light on Donald Trump’s still-uninterrupted support among millions of America’s well-educated and well-to-do. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump several-times commented: “I love the poorly-educated.” Nonetheless, in the end, a substantial fraction of his voter support arrived from the not-so-poorly-educated. Here, recalling philosopher Karl Jaspers’ far-seeing fears of “whisperings of the irrational,” Americans should be reminded of a kindred remark by Third Reich Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels: “Intellect rots the brain.”

               Thankfully, there do remain tangibly meaningful distinctions between German National Socialism and the false ideology of Trump Era American politics. But generally, these distinctions express more of a difference in magnitude than one of any discernible demographic origins. At one level, many Americans remain wholly willing to abide an ex-president (and potentially future president) who not only proudly avoids reading, but who openly belittles history, science and learning.

In time, if not suitably obstructed, such misplaced trust could become lethal for an entire nation.

               The “Trump Era” did not suddenly end with the election defeat of its leader. Hence, more “penetrating clear thought” is needed to understand our still-ongoing American declension. Do most Americans (even Trump’s avowed political opponents) sufficiently object to an ex-president who obviously never glanced at the US Constitution, the very same document he so solemnly swore “to uphold, protect and defend?” Is it even reasonable or persuasive to “uphold protect and defend” a document that has never even been read? Is it reasonable or persuasive that “We the people….” are still not pervasively troubled by such a cavernous intellectual disjuncture?

               Certain key questions ought not be skirted any longer. To begin, how has the United States managed to arrive at such a portentous and dismal place? What have been the pertinent failures (both particular and aggregated) of American educational institutions, most notably our vaunted universities?[3]  

                Once upon a time, in western philosophy, Plato revealed much higher leadership expectations for his “philosopher-king.”  Yet, even if we should no longer plausibly expect anything like an ideal ruler in the White House, ought we not still be entitled to a man or woman who manages to read and think, seriously? 

                Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s Zarathustra warns prophetically: “One should never seek the `higher man’ at the marketplace.” But the generally intellect-free marketplace was precisely where a misguided segment of American society first championed Donald J. Trump. What else should we have expected? In the United States, after all, we are ultimately measured by only one conspicuous standard.

               We are measured by what we buy.

               There is more, of course, much more. The former American president was not “merely” marginal or inattentive. He represented the diametric opposite of both Plato’s philosopher-king and Nietzsche’s “higher-man.” At its moral and analytic core, the Trump administration expressed a wretched inversion of all that might once have been ennobling in the United States. Even more worrisome, we Americans are now stumbling further and further backwards, visibly, unsteadily, not in decipherable increments, but in giant leaps of self-propagating and mutually reinforcing harms.

               Among other debilities, these leaps identify the stain of unforgivable cowardice, especially in certain narrowly-combative sectors of the US Congress.

 Former president Trump never did begin to understand that tangible US history deserves a special pride of place. How many Americans have ever paused to remember that the Founding Fathers who framed the second amendment were not expecting automatic weapons? How many citizens have ever really bothered to know that the early American Republic was a religious heir of John Calvin or the philosophical descendant of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes? How many “successful” US lawyers have even heard of William Blackstone, the celebrated English jurist whose learned Commentaries literally formed the common law underpinnings of America’s legal system?

               There is more. Is there a single Trump lawyer (personal or institutional) who could conceivably recognize (let alone read) Blackstone’s juristic contributions? It’s a silly question.

               Human beings are the creators of their machines; not the other way round. Still, in politics, there exists today an implicit and grotesque reciprocity between creator and creation, a potentially lethal pantomime between users and the used. Nowhere is this prospective lethality more apparent than among the endlessly self-deluded but always loyal supporters of former US President Donald Trump. If these supporters still follow him faithfully, it is because they seek more intense emotional satisfactions than Science or Reason can ever possibly offer.

               But by definition it’s an ill-fated search.

Again and again, these acolytes turn to contrivance, conspiracy and an utterly willful irrationality. Whether the January 6 insurrection was past or prologue remains to be seen.

               Even today, former President Donald Trump’s simplifying “explanations” offer millions of Americans an ill-founded kind of reassurance. Metaphorically, they continue to provide adherents with a ubiquitous and useful “solvent,” one capable of “dissolving” almost anything of any enlightening consequence. At the end of the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, the philosopher Immanuel Kant urged Europeans: “Sapere Aude”: “Dare to know.” Above all else, the Trump minions’ uninterrupted “fight” against Science and Reason expresses a fierce struggle against this helpful mantra, against the indispensable sovereignty of human intellectual freedom.

               What’s ahead for the United states? Soon, even if Americans should somehow manage to avoid nuclear war and nuclear terrorism – an avoidance not to be taken for granted in the dissembled aftermath of Donald Trump – the swaying of the national “vessel” could become unendurable. Then, the phantoms of great ships of state once laden with silver and gold would no longer lie forgotten. Then, perhaps, we could finally understand that the circumstances that sent the compositions of Homer, Maimonides, Goethe, Milton, Shakespeare, Freud and Kafka to join the works of properly forgotten poets were neither unique nor transient.

               These circumstances were recurrent and remain palpably menacing.

               In an 1897 essay titled “On Being Human,” Woodrow Wilson inquired about the “authenticity “of Americans. “Is it even open to us to choose to be genuine?” he asked. This American president had answered “yes,” but only if the citizens could first refuse to cheer the dreadfully injurious “herds” of “mass”[4] society. Otherwise, as he had already understood, our entire society would be left bloodless, a skeleton, dead with that rusty death of broken machinery, more hideous even than the biological decomposition of each individual person.

                In every society that seeks to endure (as Emerson and the other American Transcendentalists had already recognized), the wittingly scrupulous search for Reason is most important. Looking ahead, there can be a “better”American soul[5] (and thereby a more Reason-directed national politics),  but not before this nation can first acknowledge a prior obligation. This antecedent requirement is a starkly overriding national responsibility to overcome a still-menacing “herd” culture.

               Per Karl Jaspers’ apt warnings, this means a primal obligation to uproot an all- too-often triumphant Anti-Reason.

               Even after its final destructive explosion of lawlessness at the US Capitol, the Trump presidency managed to end without igniting a catastrophic war.  But for the United States, even that presumptively “happy ending” might still represent little more than a temporary reprieve. Unless we can finally begin to work much harder at changing this polity’s consistently core antipathies to Intellect, Law and (above all) Reason, Americans will have to face periodically perilous eras of collective decline.

               The “trick” will be to alter the nation’s direction in time. Philosophically, to change this lethal trajectory will call for a manifestly far-reaching national victory of Reason over Anti-Reason. Once such a victory is finally achieved, the United States could finally begin to fashion a future based upon more than distressingly illiterate conspiracy theories and rancorously foolish ad hominem diatribes.

               America’s most genuinely primal problem is not a struggle against any one species or another of “enemy” (whether foreign or domestic), but a recalcitrant segment of United States citizens which “knows nothing and wants to know nothing of truth.” Until this is changed, millions of Americans will cling fiercely to evident and dangerous nonsense.

               Until this is reversed, enlightenment and survival will remain in dire peril.

[1] We were all originally warned about confusing “shadows” for reality by Plato (The Republic). See, by the present author, Professor Louis René Beres, at Horasis (Zurich):

[2] The first language of the present author, Professor Louis René Beres, was German. Born in Zürich, this is his own translation.

[3] See by this author at The Daily Princetonian: Louis Rene Beres,

[4] See especially Jose Ortega y’Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses (Spain, 1930).

[5] Sigmund Freud maintained a general antipathy to all things American. In essence, he most objected, according to Bruno Bettelheim, to this country’s “shallow optimism” and its seemingly corollary commitment to crude forms of materialism. America, thought Freud, was very evidently “lacking in soul.” See: Bruno Bettelheim, Freud and Man’s Soul (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983), especially Chapter X.

LOUIS RENÉ BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue. His twelfth and most recent book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel's Nuclear Strategy (2016) (2nd ed., 2018) Some of his principal strategic writings have appeared in Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); International Security (Harvard University); Yale Global Online (Yale University); Oxford University Press (Oxford University); Oxford Yearbook of International Law (Oxford University Press); Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College (Pentagon); Special Warfare (Pentagon); Modern War Institute (Pentagon); The War Room (Pentagon); World Politics (Princeton); INSS (The Institute for National Security Studies)(Tel Aviv); Israel Defense (Tel Aviv); BESA Perspectives (Israel); International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; The Atlantic; The New York Times and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.


China and Venezuela Deepening Cooperation

Avatar photo



Image source: X @NicolasMaduro

In a significant development that underscores the changing dynamics of global politics and economics, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Venezuelan counterpart Nicolas Maduro recently signed several bilateral cooperation agreements in Beijing, highlighting the changing dynamics of world politics and economics. China’s determination to participate in partnerships that promote economic stability and prosperity demonstrates its unwavering commitment to global economic recovery.

The agreements signify a strengthening of their partnerships and span a variety of fields, including trade, the economy, and tourism. The cooperation has been upgraded to an “All-weather strategic partnership,” reflecting the continued dedication of both countries to the advancement and development of the other. The decision by China and Venezuela to strengthen their ties comes as the world is witnessing a transformation in international alliances and trade partnerships.

The economic collaboration between the two countries is one of the most significant aspects of this new era of partnership. The recent agreements are expected to further cement Venezuela’s ties with China, which has long been the country’s major trading partner.Investments in infrastructure development and oil and gas exploration and production are part of the cooperation in the energy industry.

During his visit to China, President Maduro expressed his optimism for the relationship’s future, stating it heralds the start of a “new era” for both nations. Venezuela, which has recently experienced economic difficulties, views China as a dependable ally that can aid in reviving its economy. China, on the other hand, sees Venezuela as a crucial friend in the region and a valuable supply of natural resources.

China and Venezuela’s energy cooperation has broad implications. As the globe grapples with concerns about energy security and climate change, this alliance might have a big impact on the global energy landscape. China’s investments in Venezuela’s oil sector can stabilize oil prices and provide a more consistent supply of crude oil to the global market.

Aside from the energy industry, both countries have pledged to deepen their collaboration in a variety of other economic areas. Venezuela can benefit from China’s expertise in agricultural technologies and infrastructural development in one area. Venezuela may enhance food production and reduce its reliance on imports by modernizing its agricultural sector with Chinese assistance, thereby increasing food security for its citizens.

Additionally, both countries have enormous potential in the tourism sector. Venezuela has incredible landscapes such as the famous Angel Falls and virgin Caribbean beaches, which may appeal to Chinese tourists looking for new travel experiences. Similarly, China’s rich history and culture have always captured the interest of visitors from all over the world, including Venezuelans. The tourist accords aim to make travel between the two countries easier, to foster cultural interaction, and to develop tourism-related enterprises.

Furthermore, the strengthened relationship extends beyond economic interests to include political and strategic considerations. Both countries have reaffirmed their commitment to mutual support in international forums and to no interference in the other’s internal affairs. This strategic partnership is consistent with China’s aim of establishing a multipolar world and strengthening cooperation across developing nations.

The collaboration between China and Venezuela should be seen in the larger Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) initiative. The BRI seeks to establish a network of economic and infrastructure partnerships across Asia, Europe, Africa, and Latin America. A deeper integration of Venezuela into China’s global economic vision through its participation in the BRI could create new trade and investment opportunities.

The potential for economic development in Venezuela is one of the most notable benefits of the China-Venezuela cooperation. In recent years, the South American country has suffered severe economic issues, including high inflation, financial sanctions, and political unrest. China’s investments and assistance can help stabilize Venezuela’s economy, generate jobs, and raise inhabitants’ living standards.

The China-Venezuela connection is a key milestone in the shifting global political and economic landscape. In a changing world order, this partnership has the potential to provide Venezuela with economic prosperity, stability, as well as greater autonomy.

Continue Reading


Confusion and uncertainty shape debate about U.S. Gulf policy

Avatar photo



Image source: twitter @USAinUAE

Debates about the US commitment to Gulf security are skewed by confusion, miscommunication, and contradictory policies.

The skewing has fuelled uncertainty about US policy as well as Gulf attitudes in an evolving multi-polar world and fuelled misconceptions and misunderstandings.

The confusion is all the more disconcerting given that the fundamentals of US Gulf relations are beyond doubt.

The United States retains a strategic interest in the region, even if its attention has pivoted to Asia. Moreover, neither China nor Russia is capable or willing to replace the US as the Gulf’s security guarantor.

“None of the Gulf states believe China can replace the United States as the Gulf’s security protector,” said Gulf International Forum Executive Director Dania Thafer.

The recent US military build-up in the Gulf to deter Iran with thousands of Marines backed by F-35 fighter jets and an aircraft carrier helped reassure Gulf states in the short term. So has the possibility of the US putting armed personnel on commercial ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz.

The build-up followed the United Arab Emirates’ withdrawal from a US-led, 34-nation maritime coalition in May because the US had not taken decisive action against Iranian attacks on Gulf shipping, including a vessel traveling from Dubai to the Emirati port of Fujairah.

Even so, the United States has allowed confusion and uncertainty to persist. In addition, the US as well as the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, appear to pursue contradictory goals.

“The US…did not formulate a very clear approach to how the US wants to work with the GCC as a whole” instead of cooperating with individual Gulf states, said analyst Nawaf bin Mubarak Al Thani, a former Qatari brigadier general and defense attaché in Qatar’s Washington embassy.

The Gulf Cooperation Council or GCC groups the six Gulf monarchies – Saudi Arabia, the UAE. Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman.

“Unless the US becomes clear in its intentions about how it wants to proceed with its future defense relationship with the GCC as a whole, I think we will be going in circles,” Mr. Al Thani added.

The United States has unsuccessfully tried to nudge the GCC to create an integrated air and missile defense system for several years.

Former Pentagon official and Middle East scholar Bilal Y. Saab suggests that the US has moved in the case of Saudi Arabia to enhance confidence by helping the kingdom turn its military into a capable fighting force and developing a first-ever national security vision but has failed to communicate that properly.

“Our geographical command in the region, also known as the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), has been conducting a very quiet…historic transformation from being a war-time command to something of being a security integrator…to activate partnerships to attain collective security objectives,” Mr. Saab said.

“This is not just about having confidence in the US role; it’s also about the United States having confidence in the willingness and ability of those Gulf states to buy into this new mission of doing things together,” Mr. Saab said.

“My biggest problem is that we’re not communicating this stuff well… There’s a lot of confusion in the Gulf about what we’re trying to do,” he added.

Analysts, including Mr. Saab, caution that the United States’ recent willingness to consider concluding defense pacts with Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE is at odds with its revamped security approach to the region.

Saudi Arabia has demanded a security pact alongside guaranteed access to the United States’ most sophisticated weaponry as part of a deal under which the kingdom would establish diplomatic relations with Israel.

The UAE initially made similar noises about a defense pact but has since seemingly opted to watch how the US talks with Saudi Arabia evolve.

A defence pact “is incredibly inconsistent with what we are trying to do with CENTCOM… The moment you provide a defence pact to the Saudis or, frankly, any other country in the region, this is where you go back to the old days of complacency, of dependency on the United States as the guardian and as doing very little on your own to promote and advance your own military capabilities,” Mr. Saab said.

His comments may be more applicable to Saudi Arabia than the UAE, which has long invested in its military capabilities beyond acquiring sophisticated weaponry.

The roots of confusion about the US commitment to the Gulf lie in evolving understandings of the US-Gulf security relationship based on the 1980 Carter Doctrine, the United States’ response to Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, and that year’s Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

President Jimmy Carter laid out the doctrine in his 1989 State of the Union address. “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force,” Mr. Carter said.

Robert E. Hunter, then a National Security Council official and the author of Mr. Carter’s speech, insists that the doctrine was intended to deter external powers, notably the Soviet Union, rather than defend Gulf states against Iran or secure shipping in strategic regional waterways.

“The often-misquoted Carter Doctrine…did not refer to the ‘free flow of commerce.’ I wrote almost all of the speech… it was designed to deter Soviet aggression against Iran, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which began a few weeks earlier,” Mr. Hunter said.

The Reagan Doctrine, enunciated five years later by Mr. Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, reinforced his predecessor’s position.

“The US must rebuild the credibility of its commitment to resist Soviet encroachment on US interests and those of its Allies and friends, and to support effectively those Third World states that are willing to resist Soviet pressures or oppose Soviet initiatives hostile to the United States, or are special targets of Soviet policy,” Mr. Reagan said.

President George W. Bush’s development of US doctrine after the 9/11 Al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington proved more problematic for the Gulf states.

Mr. Bush defended the United States’ right to defend itself against countries that harbor or aid militant groups.

His doctrine justified the US invasions of Afghanistan and, Iraq. Gulf states saw the Iraq war as destabilizing and problematic, particularly with some on the American right calling for a US takeover of Saudi oil fields.

Nonetheless, Gulf states had plenty of reasons to reinterpret the Carter Doctrine to include a US commitment to defend Gulf states against regional as well as external threats.

The Gulf states’ reinterpretation resulted from a US lack of clarity and actions that seemingly confirmed their revised understanding.

These included the United States leading a 42-nation military alliance that in 1991 drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, establishing bases in the Gulf in the wake of the Iraqi invasion, US interventionism following the 9/11 assaults, and the ongoing protection of Gulf shipping against Iranian attacks.

As a result, a lack of clarity and confusion in Washington and the Gulf’s capitals continue to dominate the debate about the US-Gulf security relationship.

Said Mr. Saab: “I would like to understand from the Gulf states whether what we are selling, they are actually buying. What we are selling is…a very real partnership. No longer guardianship, but actual partnership. I don’t know where individual countries stand on these proposals… Until we get common ground on this, there is nothing in the Middle East that we do that is really going to work.”

Continue Reading


US Diplomacy in Asia: Navigating a New Era of Cooperation

Avatar photo



State Department photo by Ron Przysucha/ Public Domain

In an era marked by shifting global dynamics and a resurgent emphasis on diplomacy, the United States must adapt its approach to international relations, particularly in its dealings with Asian countries. China’s recent call for the United States to recognize the shared aspirations of Asian countries has significant implications.

The changing global political landscape underscores the need for a commitment to cooperation, stability, and mutual development. The United States should heed this call and adopt a more cooperative approach in its interactions with Asian countries, which can benefit not only the region but also the entire world. This call from China comes at a time when the U.S. is making diplomatic strides in its relationship with Vietnam.

Vietnam, a significant player in the region, continually emphasizes that enhancing its comprehensive strategic cooperative engagement with China is its top foreign policy objective. This commitment underscores the importance of Asian nations forging partnerships based on mutual understanding and shared goals, rather than divisive politics.

China’s approach to bilateral relations with Asian countries is rooted in principles that promote regional peace, stability, development, and prosperity. It emphasizes that such connections should not target third parties or jeopardize regional well-being.

China’s call for the U.S. to adhere to basic norms governing international relations is an invitation to enter an era of diplomacy that moves beyond the outdated zero-sum pursuit of power politics. Understanding the changing dynamics in Asia is critical to understanding the significance of China’s call. The region is experiencing unparalleled economic expansion, technological advancement, and social development. Through trade, investment, and cultural contacts, Asian countries are becoming increasingly interconnected. Their mutual goals concentrate on maximizing their ability for the greater good.

Indeed, the world has changed since the days when superpowers ruled global affairs. Diplomacy is a more complex endeavor in today’s connected and multipolar world. By adopting a more cooperative approach to Asian issues, the United States has a rare chance to demonstrate its commitment to becoming a constructive global partner.

China’s call for the United States to respect common goals is grounded in a vision of Asian cooperation that transcends historical resentments and ideological disagreements. It recognizes that each country in the area has unique strengths and challenges and that collaboration can help solve those challenges more efficiently.

This call includes not just diplomacy but also economic links, cultural exchanges, and people-to-people relationships. Asian countries are keen to tap into the tremendous potential for trade and investment, and accepting this chance could help not only the US economy but also the stability and prosperity of the entire Asian region.

The US must consider the concerns and interests of all Asian countries, including China. A cooperative strategy that respects each country’s sovereignty and objectives is more likely to yield beneficial results and contribute to regional stability. The days of hegemony and Cold War mentalities are behind, and the future of global politics lies in cooperation, mutual progress, and common goals. The world is watching, and the choices made today will shape the future of international relations in Asia and beyond.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize China’s significant contributions to the prosperity and security of the Asian region and beyond. China’s economic growth and development have been major drivers in maintaining global economic stability. It’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has aided infrastructure development in a number of countries, allowing for economic growth and connectivity.

China’s emphasis on a multipolar world and respect for sovereignty aligns with the values of equality and non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs. This position contrasts with previous instances of US interventionism and emphasizes the need to respect individual nations’ autonomy and choices.

While recognizing the significance of cooperation, it is critical to emphasize the dangers of pursuing aggressive policies in Asia. A confrontational strategy, whether through military posturing, containment efforts, or coalition formation to fight China, can lead to increasing tensions and instability in the region. Such acts may unwittingly put governments on the defensive, hindering diplomatic progress.

Whether or not Biden admitted it, his visit to Vietnam was mainly perceived as a major US move to court the Southeast Asian country and leverage its economy in support of the US offensive against China’s trade and technologies.

It’s highly important to remember that Asia is a diversified continent with intricate historical, cultural, and political aspects. The resolution of regional challenges and conflicts is more likely to be successful when strategies that emphasize collaboration and communication are used. History has taught us that engagement and diplomacy are much more successful means of settling conflicts than direct confrontation.

The call from China to the United States to embrace a new era of cooperation in Asian ties is a push for a more stable, peaceful, and prosperous world. Recognizing China’s contributions to global economic stability and its commitment to addressing significant global issues is extremely important. Adopting a cooperative approach in Asia based on equality and respect for sovereignty will pave the way for a brighter future for all nations in the area and beyond.

Continue Reading