Will surely be nailed to the pillar of shame in history, and high-level interactions between China and the United States will resume! Media: If the Japanese side insists on doing this, spokesperson | US | History within a month
This week, high-level interactions between China and the United States have once again begun, becoming a global focus of attention. Following US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, US Treasury Secretary Yellen started a four-day visit to China from July 6-9. On the afternoon of July 7th, Premier Li Qiang met with Yellen at the Great Hall of the People. Yellen stated that the US does not seek to "decouple and break the chain".
The Chinese side announced that it will implement export controls on gallium and germanium related items starting from August 1st this year, which has attracted attention from all parties. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Commerce have successively responded. Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wang Wenbin, pointed out that it is completely legitimate and reasonable for China to learn from international practices and implement export controls on some gallium and germanium related items. Spokesperson of the Ministry of Commerce, Shu Jueting, responded that the Chinese government implements export controls in accordance with the law and does not target any specific countries.
This week, the International Atomic Energy Agency released a comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of nuclear contaminated water in Fukushima, Japan, which has aroused strong opposition and questioning from all parties. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made a clear statement for several consecutive days, stating that this evaluation report cannot serve as a "talisman" or "passport" for Japan's discharge into the sea.
1
This week, high-level interactions between China and the United States have once again begun, becoming a global focus of attention.
From July 6th to 9th, US Treasury Secretary Yellen embarked on a four-day visit to China. Yellen is the second senior White House official to visit Beijing after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Within a month, two high-ranking US officials visited China one after another, what signal did they send? Some analysts believe that Yellen's visit this time is based on the overall hard policy of the Biden administration towards China, seeking contact and communication.
On the afternoon of July 7th, Premier Li Qiang met with Yellen at the Great Hall of the People.
On the afternoon of July 7th, Premier Li Qiang met with US Treasury Secretary Yellen at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Shen Jizhong
Li Qiang stated that whether China and the United States can coexist correctly is related to the future and destiny of humanity.Mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation are the fundamental ways for countries to coexist. I hope that the United States will maintain a rational and pragmatic attitude, work towards China, and promote the early return of China US relations to the right track. Strengthening cooperation is a practical need and the correct choice for both China and the United States. Both sides should strengthen communication and seek consensus on important issues in the bilateral economic field through frank exchanges, injecting stability and positive energy into the economic relationship between China and the United States.
Yellen stated that the United States does not seek to "decouple and break the chain", and is willing to work with China to implement the consensus of the Bali meeting between the two heads of state, strengthen communication, avoid misunderstandings caused by differences, strengthen cooperation in stabilizing the macroeconomy and addressing global challenges, and seek mutual benefit in the US China economy.
In fact, Yellen has said no to decoupling more than once.
Previously, Yellen stated in a hearing before the Financial Services Committee of the United States House of Representatives that open trade and investment are beneficial for both the United States and China, and decoupling from China would be catastrophic.
On July 7th, Yellen made it clear again during a meeting with representatives from the US business community that the US is not seeking to "decouple" from China.
At the bilateral level, economic and trade cooperation has always been the "ballast" and "propeller" of China US relations. Recently, many well-known American businessmen have visited China one after another, casting a vote of confidence in the prospects of China's economic development. The relevant person in charge of the Chinese Ministry of Finance stated that the essence of China US economic and trade relations is mutual benefit and win-win, and there are no winners in trade wars or "decoupling and chain breaking".
CCTV News analysis believes that the responsibility for the problem is clear, as the US holds a wrong understanding of China, formulates wrong policies towards China, and drags the US China relationship to its lowest point since the establishment of diplomatic relations. The recent interaction mode between China and the United States has brought a cool breeze to the anxious atmosphere of Sino US relations, enhancing the positive expectations of the international community for the improvement of future Sino US relations. The return of China US relations to the right track will make the world more prosperous.
How will the relationship between China and the United States continue? Xinhua News Agency recently published five consecutive comments, elaborating in depth and systematically on the fallacies of the United States' current policy towards China, pointing out the key to improving Sino US relations and the trend of world trends. The first article, "The Crux: The US Holds a Wrong Understanding of China," points out that the crux of the current dilemma in US China relations is the US's incorrect understanding of China, which leads to incorrect policies towards China. The primary prerequisite for stabilizing and improving relations with China is for the US to change its perception of China and approach China's development rationally.
2
On July 3rd, the Ministry of Commerce and the General Administration of Customs issued a notice, deciding to implement export controls on gallium and germanium related items starting from August 1st this year, which has attracted attention from all parties.
Gallium and germanium, as extremely important scarce strategic resources, are widely used in cutting-edge fields such as satellite communication, solar cells, semiconductors, and artificial intelligence. At present, both rare metals are listed as 35 key mineral categories by the United States and 61 key raw material categories by the European Union. China holds a leading position globally in both reserves and production of two types of metal minerals.
It is worth noting that in the field of semiconductors and other industries, Western countries have repeatedly exerted pressure and containment on China, with various "small actions" constantly taking place. At the end of May, Japan announced export restrictions on 23 types of semiconductor equipment and materials; On June 30th, the Netherlands announced that some semiconductor related products such as lithography machines will be included in export controls. According to media reports, the United States is considering implementing new restrictions on the export of artificial intelligence chips to China.
In response, spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce, Shu Jueting, bluntly stated that China is the world's largest semiconductor market, with chip sales accounting for about one-third of the world's total. The United States' suppression and containment will ultimately backfire on itself. The concerns of the American industry have already highlighted this point.
At this week's press conference of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, foreign media repeatedly questioned the fully legitimate and reasonable export controls that China is about to implement.
On July 5th, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wang Wenbin, pointed out that as a responsible major country, China has always been a true advocate and defender of multilateralism, committed to maintaining global industrial and supply chain security and stability, and always implementing fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory export control measures. We have always opposed the generalization of national security by individual countries, the abuse of export controls, and the implementation of bottomless, blatant suppression and containment of bullying against specific countries. The Chinese side has adopted international practices and implemented export controls on some gallium and germanium related items, which is completely legitimate and reasonable.
On July 6th, Shu Jueting responded that the Chinese government has implemented export controls on gallium and germanium related items in accordance with the law to ensure their legitimate use, with the aim of maintaining national security and better fulfilling international obligations.
Shu Jueting said that gallium and germanium related items have obvious dual-use properties, and implementing export controls on gallium and germanium related items is an international practice, which is widely controlled by major countries around the world. The Chinese government implements export controls in accordance with the law and does not target any specific country. Prior to the announcement, China had already provided advance notification through the China US and China Europe export control dialogue channels. In addition, export controls are not prohibitions on exports, and those that comply with relevant regulations will be licensed.
3
This week, the International Atomic Energy Agency released a comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water in Japan, stating that Japan's nuclear wastewater discharge plan "generally complies with international safety standards." Numerous voices from within Japan and the international community have expressed strong opposition and questioning.
South Korean citizen groups question the credibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency's assessment report on Japan's nuclear contaminated water. Shen Jizhong
Xinhua News Agency pointed out in an article that three key points cannot be ignored in this report. Firstly, the IAEA does not take the blame on Japan. Grossy emphasized that the report is not a "recommendation" or "endorsement" of Japan's sea discharge decision; Secondly, the report does not represent a unified opinion within the IAEA; Thirdly, faced with many practical concerns, the report did not respond.
The Chinese side has also repeatedly expressed its position on the issue of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water being discharged into the sea. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has recently spoken out for several consecutive days, clearly stating that the report cannot become a "talisman" or "pass" for Japan's discharge into the sea.
The spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on July 4th that China regrets the hasty release of the report by the institution. Due to economic cost considerations and ignoring the concerns and opposition of the international community, the Japanese side insists on discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea and treating the Pacific Ocean as a "sewer". No matter what the content of the report is, it cannot change the fact that Japan will continue to discharge millions of tons of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean for the next 30 years.
The Chinese Embassy in Japan held a press conference on July 4th, emphasizing that the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency cannot prove the legitimacy and legality of Japan's discharge into the sea, nor can it exempt Japan from its moral responsibility and international legal obligations.
On the same day, a Chinese representative pointed out at the 53rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council that Japan's strong push for nuclear contaminated water to be discharged into the sea, using economic costs as a reason to choose to discharge into the ocean, is equivalent to transferring the risk of nuclear pollution to all humanity, which will cause major global marine environmental and public health problems, and cause a larger range of displacement issues. We hope that the international community will pay close attention to this.
The article by Zhong Sheng in People's Daily also pointed out that this carefully worded report did not fully reflect the opinions of all experts involved in the evaluation work, and the relevant conclusions were not unanimously recognized by all experts. It simply did not provide the legitimacy and legality that Japan wanted for its sea discharge, and Japan's attempts were doomed to be in vain.
On July 6th, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin emphasized that Japan has not fully consulted with the international community, especially stakeholders. Although Japan is under domestic and international pressure to request the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct a review and evaluation, the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea is a predetermined result for Japan, and inviting the agency to evaluate is just a facade.
On July 7th, in response to Japanese officials claiming that Japan's concentration standards for tritium emissions are much stricter than those of all other countries, Wang Wenbin stated that Japan's confusion between the contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear accident and the normal operation of nuclear power plants around the world is a misconception and misleading public opinion.
Wang Wenbin said that we urge the Japanese side to stop trying to shirk responsibility, respond honestly to the legitimate concerns of the international community, stop promoting the plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea, and effectively dispose of nuclear contaminated water in a scientific, safe, transparent, and negotiated manner.
As stated in an article by CCTV News International Sharp Review, if Japan insists on promoting the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea, it will be nailed to a pillar of shame in history!
