Connect with us

East Asia

Reform of China’s National Postal Service in Light of the Ukraine War

Published

on

The normal operations of Ukrposhta, Ukraine’s national postal service, came to a screeching halt in the predawn hours of February 24 when the first Russian bombs and missiles struck Ukraine.

On the morning of the war, Igor Smelyansky, the CEO of Ukrposhta, went to his office after being awakened by phone calls. He took his computer and destroyed sensitive data. Since then, he has been on the move from one undisclosed location to another, running Ukrposhta’s operations with a phone and a laptop, in constant communication with his teams.

Ukrposhta has over 3,000 vehicles and several airplanes, 60,000 workers, and over 10,000 post offices. Some of Ukrposhta’s trucks have been used to carry food and medicine in what Smelyansky calls the “humanitarian bridge from Slovakia, Poland, Romania, and Poland”, which ensures the basic needs of Ukraine and maintains the stability of the cities.

Over a million senior citizens have not received their monthly pensions or necessary medications 10 days into the Russian invasion. Nearly a third of the population. i.e., 13 million Ukrainians, live in rural villages. The pension money is delivered on a rolling basis throughout the month, with retirees getting their payments on different days. Right now, Smelyansky’s focus has been on maintaining delivery schedules of cash pensions to 3.5 million elderly retirees. This is done by hand, to their homes, every month through the postal service.

“Before the war, we knew where everyone lived,” Smelyansky explained. With so many people displaced by the fighting, “we created a hotline for them to call and let us know where they are, and we’ll bring the money to them”. On March 5, only a short time before the war broke out, they restarted the essential disbursements.

National postal service should be a ready-made, mature, socially underpinned network system, and this is exactly how the national postal service in Ukraine works. On March 5, 2022, Liudmyla Yatsykiv, a post office worker at the Nove Selo village branch, which sits on the main road between the western city of Lviv and the Polish border, counts money in preparation for its distribution to retirees. On the other side, on March 5, 2022, Maria Lukashevych, the youngest employee to join the local post office after graduating from college just three months ago, is accompanied by an armed driver and is on her way to deliver cash pensions and groceries. “I didn’t even want to know how much money we carry! But now I’m not so scared,” she said and displayed the pepper spray that she carries in her jacket pocket. Typically, the van is on the move every morning with stacks of newspapers for subscribers, bags of groceries, as well as parcels and letters. Now that it’s wartime, they do more. She also has to deliver a few bags of pasta to residents. Because there aren’t many stores either, Ukrposhta also sells and delivers food at prices that are subsidized by the state. In fact, since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Ukrposhta has been delivering prescriptions from pharmacies.

“It’s important for our people to receive a note or a package from their relatives abroad. The Postal Service gives the feeling that you can still have a normal life”, Smelyansky asked post offices around the world not to stop sending their mail to Ukraine. “We will deliver it,” he assured them.

Whenever there is a war, an emergency, or a major disaster, the national service tends to reveal its fundamental value. That is why the British postal service is called the “Royal” Mail. Similar to the British army or the Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, they are equally respected and have not been changed in 500 years of history. This is related to the stability of the underlying social network system. In another example, even in the turbulent war years of China’s history, China’s postal service and railroads have been maintained, for the same reason.

However, China’s postal reform has taken a detour, and the postal system reform scheme released by the State Council in September 2005 put forward the plan of reorganizing the State Post Bureau. The scheme also includes reforming both the postal industry and the postal savings controlled by China Post Group Corporation, which does not rule out getting listed in the future. Its reform content includes dividing universal service business and competitive business, segmenting the business between China Post Group Corporation and other courier companies, and steps to be taken in the transformation of the Postal Savings Bank. It also encompasses aspects like stamps with certain monetary value and so on.

This reform is carried out in the trend of market-oriented reform, although the scheme certainly has numerous models as its reference points. These would include the German model (joint-stock company), the British model (state-owned joint-stock company), or the Japanese model (government agency). That being said, the necessities of China’s existing circumstances at the moment would still be a vital factor in spite of these reference points. The ultimate option, regrettably, is still heavily skewed toward the market-oriented course.

In reality, the most crucial definitional question is, “what is national post”?

According to China’s official definition, the State Post Bureau is a deputy-ministerial-level state bureau managed by the Ministry of Transportation of China, which is responsible for postal administration. The State Post Bureau is responsible for formulating policies and plans for the postal industry, as well as for the supervision and control of postal services (including express delivery companies). Accordingly, China’s official definition of “national post”, other than possessing some limited power and financial status, focuses on delivery service.

If reform is an issue involving a major strategy, then from the war in Ukraine, the other side of the problem has become obvious, i.e., the strategic definition of postal reform. In this sense, the definition of “postal system” in China in the past has become problematic. The correct strategic definition should be that the national postal system is a unique transportation system network that involves and covers China’s grass-roots society, and mails are but one of the many things that this system delivers. The national postal service should be the statutory service for the national administrative region in such a national system. Thus, it must have three important characteristics: legal status, stable employment, and integrated service.

Yet, China’s postal reform did not go in this direction.

I remember a long time ago, around the end of the last century, I wrote a short article analyzing the reforms of several large state-owned enterprises. They are mainly China Railway, China Post, China Guodian, China Energy, and Air China. Of course, there are also China Communication Construction Company (CCCC) and China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), which are all state-owned enterprises crucial for China to ensure its national security and national stability. As a matter of fact, they just cannot carry out market-oriented changes. Their reforms can only be at management levels to achieve greater efficiency, but not comprehensive market-oriented reforms.

In retrospect, one of the reasons why the reform of China’s state-owned enterprises was not successful is because it was putting the cart before the horse. It is noticeable that the institutions that require market-oriented reform have not done so. Conversely, the entities that should not be marketized were desperately being marketized. In this area of reform, state-owned enterprises are at one level, and the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC) and National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) are at another level. Moreover, the relationship between these two stages of transformation is inverted. At the level of state-owned enterprises, certain stable employments must be guaranteed, which cannot be marketized. On the other hand, marketization should be implemented at the level of SASAC and NDRC, where all policy issues should be handled according to the principle of market fairness and justice. When the situation becomes inverted, a significant number of gigantic mega-firms will appear, and nearly no enterprise can compete with them. This so-called marketization has actually caused confusion in the market. State-owned enterprises, since then, have acted as a sort of “secondary central bank”. The phenomenon of engaging in capital redistribution, in fact, is just a microcosm of the whole picture.

The problem is that I was the only one who held this view back then. Countless professors, scholars, and economists were actively “contributing plans and suggestions” on how to vigorously promote the reform of state-owned enterprises and how to divest them so as not to take a “turning back”. There is no other voice calling that certain things cannot be reformed, and the end result is the situation today. In my opinion, if China’s state-owned firms face a catastrophe on the scale of the conflict in Ukraine, they may not be able to perform as effectively as Ukrposhta.

Founder of Anbound Think Tank in 1993, Chan Kung is now ANBOUND Chief Researcher. Chan Kung is one of China’s renowned experts in information analysis. Most of Chan Kung‘s outstanding academic research activities are in economic information analysis, particularly in the area of public policy.

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

Taiwan’s Only Hope: Nuclear Capability

Published

on

Taiwan, a wonderful island nation, has had a relationship of conflict with China since its inception. With full faith in democracy, Taiwan has grown into a well-developed society, to the surprise and irritation of China. Russia’s war with Ukraine, followed by a policy decision by the West not to directly interfere in the war, has heightened fears that China will take military action against Taiwan.

In a situation in which North Korea tests new missiles every two months to show the world that it has nuclear weapons, the world does not know if the people of North Korea have freedom, three meals a day and adequate medical facilities. North Korean President Kim Jong-un runs a brutal regime with the tacit support of China that threatens the peace of the Indo-Pacific region. There is no news from North Korea about how many people have died and how they have coped with Covid-19. It should be remembered that former U.S. President Donald Trump and his team had negotiated with North Korea for denuclearization.

Israel is a tiny country in the Gulf, a non-signatory to the NPT and CTPT. The international community knows that Israel has nuclear weapons. Are any countries going to interfere with Israel? It should be noted that all Gulf countries, beginning with Saudi Arabia, are seeking reconciliation with Israel.  

Even though there have been full-scale wars between India and Pakistan after independence in 1947 and continued action against cross-border terrorism, the possession of nuclear weapons by both countries works as a deterrent and self-restraint to both countries, so that the conflicts never get out of hand.

Let’s not forget that the world, especially the U.S. during the Cold War, looked amused when Pakistan built its nuclear weapons – with the help of China – to contain India. It should be remembered that this changed the geo-political situation in South Asia. Under these circumstances, it is despicable for the international community to be a mute spectator as imperialist China attempts to arbitrarily annex Taiwan, against international law. If China started to deploy its military, the statements of the UN or any individual country would be rubbish. It won’t serve any good purpose. It’s good to remember that, every time China’s Foreign Ministry officials – and even President Xi Jinping- say that they will use all their might to annex Taiwan if Taipei City goes for independence, they demonstrate that Beijing is well-prepared for military action against Taiwan. 

It is shocking that even the democratic country of India is silent on the Taiwan issue. Countries in the region may consider that Taiwan is not their problem. Yet, every country that hesitates to curb China’s hegemony, especially East Asian countries, will have to pay a heavy price in the future. In the late 1970s, the U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger failed to predict the course of China’s leaders and the biggest historical mistake he made was to ask Washington to give economic aid to China in return for its newfound friendship. It is absurd that the same Chinese state is presently trying to rewrite the world order with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

International relations are contested. Yet, those who understand the behavior of the states in the international power system and still hesitate to react to the Taiwan issue, only cause more problems for the Indo-Pacific. At any cost, it is the duty of the international community to protect the status quo of democratic ‘Taiwan’. The international community should take advantage of the time available now to defend Taiwan’s status quo. Decisions made later will not yield any results. The international community should wake up now before the sound of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine prompts China to take similar military actions against Taiwan.

The recent visit of the U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan – along with her East Asian tour to meet with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen- has encouraged America’s continued stance on Taiwan. However, provoking China will not help Taiwan.

Today, the South China Sea in the Indo-Pacific region is under the shadow of war with the Taiwan issue. Meanwhile, China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Xie Feng has not only expressed his strong condemnation to the U.S. Ambassador to China Professor Nicholas Burns, but also said that the U.S. will pay a price for its mistake. It is worth recalling that during last week’s virtual meeting between the U.S. President Joe Biden and the Chinese President, Jinping, the latter observed that China will not be idle if “Taiwan provokes us.”

With Russia possessing a large number of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile technology, the West fears that if they comes to Ukraine’s side directly, it could turn into a nuclear World War III. As a result, they are practicing self-restraint and providing covert assistance to Ukraine, so that the war has been going on for 163 days.  If the West thinks that diplomacy is only about sustaining the negotiations and not about resolution, then the United Nations has been reduced to a weak body in dealing with international issues. International law has no teeth in today’s environment. So, it can only bark.

The world must understand the pain that Ukraine is going through today. The international community may feel pain for the people of Ukraine. Yet who can share in their grief? The ‘neo-realist’ thinker Kenneth Waltz, in an article in 1981 stated, “The reasons for preventing war between the superpowers since 1945 is nuclear weapons”. Therefore, the only way to keep ‘Taiwan’ from being pushed into the situation of Ukraine is to immediately provide them with nuclear weapons technology. Realizing the grace of time, it is inevitable that the U.S. should provide nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles to Taiwan (to be positioned in Taipei City) for self-defense targeting at least three of the major cities of China including the capital Beijing. No one should have a doubt about this strategy. This will surely be the only solution available to change China’s attitude towards Taiwan and to make the Indo-Pacific region continue in peace. 

Continue Reading

East Asia

On Chinese Democracy

Published

on

China Beijing

In recent years, China has been following the adage that “he who controls the discourse controls the world” with increasing vigour. That is, the first side to describe a given phenomenon, with a new coinage emerging, determines global attitudes towards it. There are two nations, one on either side of the Pacific, the two main economies of the world. Both declare they have a constitutional republican system and respect for human rights. Yet, one is considered a model of democracy and an example to be followed, while the other is seen as an archaic authoritarian system built upon censorship and repression. We are, of course, talking about the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China.

As recently as 15–20 years ago, it was generally accepted that the U.S. version of democracy was the model to aspire to, but this is no longer the case. Against the backdrop of the Ukraine crisis and the various reactions thereto around the world, Western journalists are increasingly giving in to the temptation to characterize this period of world history as a struggle between “democracy” (represented by the West, led by the United States, and “correct” non-Western countries such as Japan and Lithuania) and “authoritarianism” (China, Russia and the “enfants terrible of world politics” that joined them). One of the fallouts, therefore, is that there have been new turns to the discussion about whether China’s socio-political system can be called “democracy”.  

Western observers are unanimous in their appraisal: “there’s no democracy in China.” However, the problem is that the very concept of “democracy” (a certain “power of the people”) is fluid. It is much like a “healthy lifestyle”—it is easy to assume that you are leading a healthy lifestyle, while your rival is not. How can you know for sure, though?

Even political analysis falls short. For instance, any researcher who was brought up in the Western paradigm of political science will argue that if there are no direct democratic elections and a separation of powers, this is no “democracy” but something entirely different. Neither exists in China, yet this does not stop Chinese scholars from proclaiming—with no hint of irony—that their country is indeed democratic, only in a distinctly Chinese way.

It is not only the definition of “democracy” that is fluid, so too is the genesis of democratic traditions. For example, it is generally accepted that the Western neo-liberal model can be traced back to the democratic practices of Ancient Greece and that the subsequent history of humankind is a single process of encouraging and improving such practices. However, what most people do not know is that democracy, even in Athens, was an expression of the oligarchic elite’s power at best, and this was done with the help of populism and appeals to the legitimacy of the “popular opinion.” A similar situation was the case with the Veche in medieval Veliky Novgorod. At the same time, proto-democratic procedures (for example, the election of chiefs among nomads or the self-government of agricultural communities in Ancient China) existed among all the peoples of the world in one form or another, and it is a mystery why some practices led to “good democracy,” while others led to “bad authoritarianism.”

Thus, when the Chinese talk about their own “thousand-year traditions of democracy,” they are not paltering with the truth, but sincerely believe it to be true. They call the political system they now have “democratic,” with China’s Constitution containing a reference to “a socialist state governed by the people’s democratic dictatorship, led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and peasants.” Who said democracy was anything other than that? And who endowed someone with the right to decide what democracy is or is not?

It should be noted here that the term “democracy” has long been absent in the Chinese tradition. In fact, the word “minzhu” (民主, “the power of the people” or “the people are the masters”) was brought by Sun Yat-sen from Japan in the early 20th century. This was merely a re-rendering of the Japanese term “mingshu” (民主), which itself came from the Western notion of “power of the people.” The Hanzi and Kanji (which the Japanese originally adopted from China) are identical, but the wording first came from Japanese for a fact—much as the word “gongchanzhui,” 共产主义, meaning communism, as well as other “-zhui”-words (主义), which is something like the English “-ism”—and never appeared in classical Chinese texts.    

On the one hand, the term “democracy” is borrowed, and so too is its understanding. On the other hand, the term has no historical base and can be filled with any content. Or, rather, its understanding can be corrected for the sake of political expediency or local conditions. And that is exactly what has happened to “democracy.”

In China, the term appeared on the eve of the Xinhai Revolution and the overthrow the Manchu-led Qing imperial dynasty. For Sun Yat-sen and his cohort, it was important that the “power of the people” (“minzhu”) was directly opposed to the “power of the sovereign” (“junzhu”, 君主). That is, any political system where the head of state is not the sole sovereign is seen as a democracy. Incidentally, Sun Yat-sen used the word “minquan” (民主, “sovereignty of the people”) in addition to “minzhu” (民主) to denote democracy, although most people consider these terms to be identical.

In any case, if we proceed from Sun Yat-sen’s understanding of democracy, we can say that a democratic state was founded in China in 1912, since power was seized by the party, and the party consists of the people and reflects the interests of the people. This is fundamentally different to the situation where power belonged to the Son of Heaven (the Emperor’s official title).  

Of course, China’s political system of the 1910s to the 1940s—that is, before the Communist Party ascended to power—was far from the high standards of neoliberal democracy. If we were to put a label on it, we would say that it was a combination of the power of the oligarchy and generals, multiplied by the partocracy (the ruling Kuomintang party) and the cult of its leader Chiang Kai-shek. But this, of course, was also called “democracy.”

When the Communists came to power, Mao Zedong wanted to show that China would be a democracy—not the “bad” kind of democracy that reigned under Chiang Kai-shek, but a different, “new” kind of democracy. This “new democracy” (新民主), as it was called, was seen as a stopgap on the way to building a socialist society. It was still a single-party system (only it was a different party that was in power), and the position of leader (Mao Zedong) looked almost indistinguishable from that of emperor in the end.  

The death of Mao Zedong was followed by a series of reforms that laid the foundation for the modern Chinese political system, where elections do take place, although the Party’s monopoly on power remains very much intact. The Chinese people define this phenomenon as “the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class” (a quote from the preamble to the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China). It is essentially a partocratic regime based on the one that once existed in the Soviet Union, only reimagined and improved.

One of the most striking features of China’s political system is the absence of the separation of powers. Officially, the only “state power” is the national people’s congresses—the institution through which the people exercise their power under the Constitution. People’s congresses are a multi-layered pyramid, at the very bottom of which direct and quite democratic elections are indeed held. What is more, the higher people’s congresses are made up of members of the lower ones, meaning that the pyramid works as one big filter. Thus, the people actually play an indirect role in the formation of the highest body of state power – the National People’s Congress (NPC).

It just so happens that most members of the people’s congresses at all levels are communists. While some opposition-minded figures may appear as if out of nowhere at the bottom of the pyramid from time to time, they will not make it past the multi-stage filter, and only proven and reliable people will end up in the NPC. The vast majority of these (although not all) are members of the Communist Party. It is only natural, therefore, that they act within the framework of party discipline and go along with decisions adopted by party congresses in the past.

The workings of this system are quite easy to trace if you look at key personnel decisions. For example, the party leadership for the next five years will be elected this autumn at the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. The new convocation of the NPC will convene somewhat later in March, where the President of the People’s Republic of China will be elected (or re-elected). Therefore, it would be logical to assume that it will be the General Secretary of the Central Committee elected (or re-elected) at the autumn Congress.

Other key appointments will be made in a similar fashion. For example, the second-highest person in the party hierarchy will become the head of government. Is that democratic? If you were to ask China’s idea-mongers, they would tell you that it most certainly is. The NPC is formed as a result of multi-stage elections. Theoretically, parties other than the CPC can compete for a parliamentary majority. But the main thing is that the Party represents the interests of the people, meaning that the power of the party is the “power of the people.”

Are Chinese people aware that their understanding of “democracy” is different from Western standards? Of course they are. Are they about the abandon their system in order to conform to Western standards? Of course not. What is more, Chinese politicians have been actively using the term “democracy” in their official rhetoric and stressing that democracy exists in China too. They do this in defiance of the West and its “monopoly on deciding where there is democracy and where it is absent.” China realizes that the West uses this monopoly to exert pressure on foreign policies of its opponents and seeks to demonopolize this function and achieve parity in the struggle for control over the information discourse at the very least.

This is most evident not in the concept of “democracy,” but rather in the concept of “human rights.” From a Western point of view, human rights are first and foremost the right of the individual to do or have something contrary to or regardless of the interests of society or the state. The classic liberal understanding of human rights is the triad of fundamental natural rights put forward by the British political philosopher John Locke, namely, the right to “life, liberty, and property” (the understanding is that the state was created to guarantee these rights, even though they may be contrary to the interests of the state).

For China, the very notion that the interests of the individual and the state may not coincide is inconceivable. The Western understanding of human rights thus not have any foundation. The Chinese concept of “human rights” (also absent in the traditional political and legal system) is also different. Human rights, as the Chinese understand the term (at least those I have had the chance to talk to), means, first of all, the right to food and a decent quality of life, and the state exists to ensure this. This implies that the highest interests of the state and the highest interests of the individual are one and the same.

Thus, as long as there is economic growth in the country and people are fed and clothed, the Chinese version of democracy and human rights will be supported by its people. And the idea that all the countries in the world will, as globalization marches forward, eventually adopt the Western socio-political system is no longer popular or seen as a given.

After the West emerged victorious from the Cold War at the turn of the 1990s and everyone wanted to be like the winners, it was the United States who perhaps had the moral right to say which countries were “democratic” and which were not, and everyone listened. What is more, both China and Russia sincerely wanted to become a part of the “global West.” But when it became clear that they would never occupy a place other than the periphery in this pro-Western global model, and that Western society had become a prisoner of its own agenda (poorly understood and not at all appealing for the “non-West”), people started to voice their criticism of the West’s monopoly on the right to play the role of arbiter.   

Nowhere can these voices be heard louder than in Russia and China, and to some it may seem that they are singing this tune in unison. At the same time, the two countries have a number of differences and contradictions, and the Chinese political agenda is even less clear than the Western one. Thus, Russia and China should not be lumped together into some kind of “axis of authoritarianism,” not only because there is no military–political alliance between the two countries (this is just a formality), but also because the terms “democracy” and “authoritarianism” are little more than “labels” that rivals in the current political climate tag each other with in the struggle for control over the information discourse.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

East Asia

Tension prevails after Pelosi’s Visit

Published

on

Image tweeted by @SpeakerPelosi

Already tense geopolitics are boiling and making the whole world more nervous. Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan has damaged International politics and heated the tension around the globe. Her visit was opposed by more than 100 countries and equally criticized domestically. Many scholars, intellects, politicians, and civil society is criticizing her visit.

Looking at her profile and past, she was a rigid, hardliner, and non-flexible personality. Her role in American politics is also the same tough. She is not willing to accept others’ point of view and always insist on her opinion, or precisely described – imposing her ideology on others.

The same happened in the case of her Taiwan visit, although there was opposition from within the US as well as globally, in addition to strong warnings from China, yet, she made her visit. It was her deliberate attempt to offend public opinion and spoil the international political environment. Certainly, it has created a lot of adverse impacts, on the global economy, security, and peace.

One-China policy is well recognized and a pre-condition to establishing diplomatic relations with China. There are only 13 countries, that maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. It means the rest of the whole world recognizes China only and sticks to the One-China policy. Her visit was totally against the One-China policy.

1.4 Billion People in China are offended and public sentiments were ignored. There is tremendous pressure on the Chinese government from the public to protect its sovereignty. Although, China has made tremendous developments on the economic front, technological advancement, and defense capacities. China possesses the ability to capture Taiwan by force. Yet, Beijing has never used military options. China is a responsible state, and very mature in its international affairs. It always kept on convincing for the peaceful reunification of Taiwan with Main Land through dialogue. China has introduced “One Country, Two Systems” to manage Hong Kong and Taiwan, and is always willing to offer a similar option to Taiwan, even a high degree of autonomy.  If Taiwan thinks smartly, can bargain more concessions and favors from China, but, ultimately have to reunify with the mainland.

The implication of her visit and its consequences must be serious, but, to describe it precisely, may not be possible at this stage, the immediate actions taken by Beijing are as:-

1. Canceling China-U.S. Theater Commanders Talk.

2. Canceling China-U.S. Defense Policy Coordination Talks (DPCT).

3. Canceling China-U.S. Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) meetings

4. Suspending China-U.S. cooperation on the repatriation of illegal immigrants.

5. Suspending China-U.S. cooperation on legal assistance in criminal matters.

6. Suspending China-U.S. cooperation against transnational crimes.

7. Suspending China-U.S. counter-narcotics cooperation.

8. Suspending China-U.S. talks on climate change.

The big Military exercise is ongoing in the Strait of Taiwan, where China is using live ammunition and using all three forces, Land, Air, and Navy, very close to Taiwan. In fact, surrounds Taiwan closely.

What other measures or reactions will China take, is not known yet. As China is an inward society and does not reveal what they are planning or thinking, so one may not guess precisely. China believes in doing more but beating the drum less (Less Shouting). It is well understood that Taiwan is a very sensitive issue for the Chinese nation and the reaction must be very serious.

The adverse impact of the Ukraine war is already harming the global economy and if something goes wrong in this region, the price has to be paid by the whole world. China is a World Factory and provides almost 70% of consumer products to the rest of the world. The price offered by China is incompatible and meets the needs of a majority of the middle and lower middle class of the whole world. Only filthy rich people can afford expensive products, but, China caters to the absolute majority.

In case of crisis, the developing and underdeveloped nations will suffer severely. Poverty will jump globally and the masses will be deprived of consumer products. The world will be divided into more blocks. China will be more close to Russia and the cold war may revive once again.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

East Asia3 hours ago

Taiwan’s Only Hope: Nuclear Capability

Taiwan, a wonderful island nation, has had a relationship of conflict with China since its inception. With full faith in...

Health & Wellness8 hours ago

`Medicine from the Sky` Drone Delivery Programme Set for Take-off in Pradesh

Medicine from the Sky, a flagship initiative by the World Economic Forum, is to be launched in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east...

Economy10 hours ago

Empowering women-led small businesses in Nepal to go digital

Authors: Louise Anne Sophie Lavaud and Mitch Hsieh*Throughout the years, Laxmi Shrestha and her husband saw the opportunities that opening...

World News11 hours ago

New WEF ESG initiative looks to improve socioeconomic conditions in Northern Central America

The World Economic Forum announced a new initiative in three Central American countries that will support the private sector apply...

Central Asia15 hours ago

Unintended Consequences: A heyday for the geopolitics of Eurasian transport

When Russia invaded Ukraine, it took itself off the map of Eurasian transport corridors linking China and Europe. At the...

Economy17 hours ago

Is It Possible to Lift Sanctions Against Russia? — No

Every conflict sooner or later ends in peace. Such is the conventional wisdom that can often be heard from those...

Energy20 hours ago

Russia and the EU’s messy energy divorce places both sides in a race against time

The debate over Russian gas is heating up across Europe. For instance, Nord Stream’s turbine maintenance procedures would have been...

Trending