There is a twin motivation behind his presence in the regio

one hand, Modi wanted to push forward the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in South Tibet where it may help New Delhi assimilate local

population and convert it demographically into a more “Indianized” one; on the other, Modi sought to pacify irritated and alienated local comm

unities by introducing more developmental projects and pro-growth schemes. In addition, by sending out a strong signal that China’s fierce protests woul

d not deter him from visiting the frontier region, Modi also sought to appeal to nationalistic voters before the election.

Following the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha on January 8, South T

ibet had been hit by waves of protests across the region. A large number of Hindu immigrants from Bangladesh have been sent into South Tib

et since the 1950s, but have no citizenship. However, if the Bill is enacted, these refugees would likely get Indi

an citizenship, which poses a threat to the local community as their swelling population in the long run may well crowd out and eat up the indigenous pop

ulation. For example, Hajong people – a Hindu group originally residing in former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) which fled to India  due to religious persecu

tion – have been migrating to South Tibet since the 1960s, but their presence since then has been a constant source of conflicts.

It was against this backdrop that Modi trod on the soil of South Tibet. Signaling that his governm

ent gives a lot of importance to the region which has been neglected by previous governments, Modi sought to

pacify annoyed locals by giving them a long list of gifts. The Indian prime minister laid the foundation stone of several developme

www.ash01.com

wasting US’ wealth. In the near future, Washington may no

 assistance to the World Bank and quit the organization. The World Bank is a multilateral institution which was establ

ished under US leadership, and guided by the US Treasury Department. Its heads have traditionally been

appointed by the US government. The World Bank reflected US global strength and was a key instrument for

Washington’s global governance, and increasing its influence as a soft power. However, currently Washington seems to de

molish the structure it built itself by exiting international organizations that signal globalism.

Based on the experiences of the late 20th century, there are several drawbacks of globalism and globalization.

First, globalization enables strong nations to consolidate their d

ominance and lead the international order. It is an instrument that induces weaker states to ob

ey the will of the stronger ones. Globalism is keen on promoting universal values, taking the moral high gr

ound, blaming countries whose actions do not accord with universal values and even intervening militarily in some natio

ns. What does international intervention bring to global politics? It can be explained by hot button issues in Eurasia.

ashtt.com

Meanwhile, Japan continued signing agreements with other

one with the UK in 2017 and another with India the following year. By exploiting the power of these regional countries, Japan aims to secure military provisions for its SDF in t

he Indo-Pacific region from the US, Canada, Australia and India and in the North Atlantic region from the US, the UK, France and Canada.

This has laid the foundation for Japan to broaden its SDF activities and ensure military provision with its par

tners. It is a small-scale bilateral military alliance system centered on Japan. This shows Japan’s long-term strategic plan.

Since the 21st century, Japan has clearly labeled China as its biggest real and potential rival. Especially since Shinzo Abe took office, he spared no efforts at contai

ning China. During Abe’s first term, the Japanese government raised the idea of the “arc of freedom and prosperity.” When

he became prime minister for a second time, the policies advocated by his cabinet, including the values-based alliance, the alliance of

maritime democracies, the democratic security diamond and the freedom corridor, have all kept China in focus.

Because of the ACSAs with Australia and India, Japan can militarily constrain China’s Belt and Road Initiative in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. In the A

tlantic, it can also exert forceful intervention in China’s policy in Europe, North Africa and West Africa.

In some areas where China’s military strength has not reached, Japan has crafted its military pla

n in advance by utilizing its bilateral alliance system, trap-falling China’s military strategy into a passive position.

njLongrun.cn

Japan’s ambition is to become a global political power. But

litical and diplomatic means alone cannot support Japan’s global ambitions. A military presence at the global level is needed if Japan is to expand its political clout.

Compared with old European powers like the UK and France, Japan’s military influence in Europe is jerkwater. But it is different after Japan signed military pa

cts with these countries – Japan’s political influence is increasing because of the support of military powers.

With the influence of the UK and France declining in the Asia-Pacific region, their military activities can get

the support from Japan via the ACSA, which will immensely boost Japan’s military clout. These European countries will not look at Ja

pan through the military lens, which will effectively strengthen Japan’s political might.

Meanwhile, exchange of military provisions will help enhance people-to-people exchanges between Japan and these countries, ex

erting Japan‘s cultural influence in these countries and beyond. Even if Japan fails to become a permanent member of the UN Security Co

uncil, it can still play a major role in the world. This has been part of the global strategies of the Abe administration.

We can see that Japan signing ACSAs with six countries is not just for defense and military purposes, it’s part of an overall plan to influence economics, po

litics, military and culture, which is a long-term strategic mind-set of the Japanese government.

www.xzzygk.com

German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed the hope on Febru

that China should be involved in international disarmament efforts. “We would of course be glad if such talks were held not j

ust between the United States, Europe and Russia but also with China,” said Merkel at the 55th Munich Security Conference.

Her remarks were clearly directed against Washington and Moscow’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

Yang Jiechi, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee,

who was also present at the conference, reiterated that “we [China] are opposed to the multilateralization of INF.”

The INF treaty concerns Europe and Germany’s interests. The US took the lead in abandoning INF, resulting in the collapse of the arms control system.

It is understandable that Berlin is anxious, but Merkel’s hasty call for Beijing is rath

er inappropriate. Her words disrespect China’s interests and wishes, and objectively encourage Washington to quit irresponsibly.

www.jsLongsun.com

Washington alleged that INF failed because Moscow did not

ply with INF and Beijing was not bound by the treaty. These were its main excuses for the withdrawal.

Germany believes that the more countries involved in INF, the better. However, ma

ny European countries can never understand the security risks and the urgency to strengthen national defense in other regions.

The INF Treaty was signed by the US and the Soviet Union. It was a compromise bet

ween the two superpowers with the same level of military power to ease their confrontations.

Although China is now much stronger than it was in the past, its nuclear power and compreh

ensive military strength are far from being equal to those of the US and conducting negotiations on an equal footing.

The Europeans are clear that the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty is part of its America First agenda and an abandonment of its international obligations.

At the Munich security conference, Merkel and European countries criticized recent US security policies. But on the issue of the

INF treaty, Merkel snubbed China to serve US interests, reflecting the selfishness of Germans and some Europeans.

jsLongsun.com

Xi called China-US ties one of the world’s most importa

nt bilateral relationships, and the two countries have wide common interests and shoulder im

portant responsibilities in safeguarding world peace and promoting global prosperity.

Maintaining the healthy and stable development of the China-US relationship is in line with the fundamen

tal interests of the people of both countries, and it is also the common wish of the international community, Xi said.

Xi mentioned his latest meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G20 Lead

ers Summit in Argentina in December, saying that the two leaders reached important consensuses.

The two countries should promote building stable, cooperative and coordinative China-US relations, Xi said. The two sides s

hould enhance communication, focus on cooperation and handle disputes to promote economic and trade cooperation, Xi added.

The US team expressed the willingness to make joint efforts with the Chinese team to strive for the conclusion of a deal that meets the interests of both sides.

ax153.cn

Five more lunar locations get Chinese nameson data

Five more geographical entities on the moon have been given Chinese names,

based on discoveries from China’s latest Chang’e 4 mission, according to a news conference on Friday.

The China National Space Administration, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Internatio

nal Astronomical Union held a joint news conference Friday to announce the five names approved by the IAU on Feb 4.

The landing site of the Chang’e 4 probe is named Statio Tianhe, and three annular pits around the landing site are called Zh

inyu, Hegu and Tianjin. The central peak in the Von Karman Crater is referred to as Mons Tai.

The five places are clearly shown on high-resolution images based on data from the Chang’e 2 and Chang’e 4 missions.

China’s Chang’e 4 probe, launched on Dec 8, landed on the Von K

arman Crater in the South Pole-Aitken Basin on the far side of the moon on Jan 3.

www.ex187.cn

Mentality of US poses biggest threat to humanity from space

Forget asteroids, it is the United States and its pathological need to maintain its he

gemony at any cost that pose the biggest threat to humanity from space.

In its latest Defense Intelligence Agency report, the US claims that Russia and Chi

na have taken steps to challenge the US in space technology, blatantly ig

noring the fact that space does not belong to it, and every country has the right to peacefully explore it.

The report says that “long-standing technological and cost barriers to

space are falling, enabling more countries and commercial firms to participate in sa

tellite construction, space launch, space exploration and human spaceflight”.

But from the way it talks about what China and Russia or other countries have a

chieved in their development of space technology, it seems as if the US believes th

at when it planted a flag on the moon it staked the claim to have the sole use of space.

www.hmijw.cn

Space a new realm for Sino-US cooperationational Space Ad

After the successful landing of the Chang’e-4 lunar probe on the far side of the moon on Jan 3, Ch

ina is planning to launch Chang’e-5, a more advanced lunar probe, later this year to collect samples from the moon.

The Chang’e-4 mission, the first such mission in history, was an important m

ilestone in the lunar exploration program of not only China but also the wo

rld. About 50 years ago, the United States’ Apollo 11 landed the first humans on the moon, marking a critical step in spa

ce exploration. But no human has landed on the moon after 1972. Since Apollo 11, according to the US, effectively en

ded its space race with the Soviet Union, the Americans abandoned all ambitions to further explore space.

“Project Apollo” did not prompt other countries to join the space race because no country ot

her than the US and the Soviet Union could afford the huge costs. Even the US found it extremely difficult to s

ustain the project. For example, the cost of launching the Saturn V rocket, the carrier of Apollo 11 in 1969, was nearly $40

0 million, almost equal to the total budget of the US National Science Foundation that year.

117xe.cn