Thursday, August 6, 2026

GT: China firmly opposes US moves blocking normal cooperation between Argentine firms and Huawei: embassy: 06-0802026: *******

 

CHINA / DIPLOMACY
China firmly opposes US moves blocking normal cooperation between Argentine firms and Huawei: embassy
Published: Aug 06, 2026 08:48 AM
Huawei Photo: VCG

Huawei Photo: VCG

China firmly opposes the recent moves of the US Embassy in Argentina, which has deliberately hyped up the "China threat theory," generalized the concept of national security, and blatantly obstructed Argentine enterprises from conducting normal cooperation with China's Huawei by revoking visas, Chinese embassy in Argentina said on Thursday.

Such practices fully reflect the arrogance and prejudice of the US side, constitute a serious disrespect for the sovereignty of other countries, and seriously undermine the principles of the free market, the embassy said.

The embassy said the US has always touted democratic values and freedom, yet it cannot tolerate the normal survival and development of a foreign private enterprise in a third country, fully exposing its hypocritical nature. "We urge the US side to correct its perception of China and stop its hegemonic acts and political manipulation," it noted.

Global Times

GT: US - Brazil diplomatic tensions expose Washington's doudated 'backyard' mentality.: 05-08-2026: ***********

 

OPINION / OBSERVER
US-Brazil diplomatic tensions expose Washington’s outdated ‘backyard’ mentality
Published: Aug 05, 2026 11:59 PM
Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

Illustration: Chen Xia/GT


The US was the first country to recognize Brazil's independence in 1822. More than 200 years later, Washington appears to still have not fully understood what it means to "recognize" a country's "independence."

The headlines across the Americas have been dominated by diplomatic tensions between the US and Brazil over the past few weeks. On Tuesday local time, the US revoked the visa of the Brazilian ambassador to Washington, further pushing the escalating diplomatic dispute to a new peak.

Even though the US claimed that it was a "reciprocal measure" after Brazil delayed approval of US ambassador nominee Danny Perez, it is not merely a procedural disagreement, but a contest over national sovereignty.

Since July, the US has slapped a 25 percent tariff on Brazilian imports over alleged "unfair trade practices," added another 12.5 percent duty related to forced labor on Brazilian goods, and sought to dispatch officials to Brazil to question the "fairness and integrity" of the country's electoral system.

"The current tensions between the US and Brazil are not merely a tit-for-tat diplomatic dispute, but reflect Washington's attempt to use economic pressure and diplomatic leverage to influence another country's electoral process," noted Jiang Shixue, a professor at the Center for Latin American Studies at Shanghai University.

The Brazilian left-wing government's emphasis on anti-hegemonism and an independent foreign policy approach stands in contrast to the "America First" agenda pursued by Washington, Jiang said. As Brazil's October presidential election approaches, the US' attempt to exert influence through economic and diplomatic means has exposed its long-standing hegemonic mindset of interfering in other countries' domestic affairs. Such actions constitute an infringement on national sovereignty and run counter to the international principle of non-interference in internal affairs.

Ultimately, the diplomatic dispute represents a direct clash between Brazil's pursuit of strategic autonomy and the deeply rooted US "backyard" mentality. More broadly, it reflects a structural tension between the growing desire for autonomy among Global South countries and the US' attempt to preserve its traditional sphere of hegemonic influence.

This isn't new in US relations with Latin America. Since the Monroe Doctrine in the early 19th century, Washington has long viewed the Americas as its own sphere of influence. From direct military intervention in the past to tariffs, sanctions, visa restrictions and diplomatic pressure nowadays, the US still assumes it has the right to shape the political choices of other nations in the region.

However, the 21st century is no longer the world it once was.

Brazil has taken a series of measures in response: requesting WTO consultations over US tariffs, denying entry to US officials over concerns of election interference, withholding formal approval of the US ambassador nominee for US breaching diplomatic norms without seeking Brazil's consent in advance, and issuing statement to swiftly condemn the US action as part of a deliberate campaign to influence the election. Brazil has demonstrated how a Global South country can defend its sovereignty and pursue independent development using legitimate diplomatic tools available under the modern international order.

The size of a country or the strength of its economy does not determine the degree of sovereignty it possesses. Brazil's growing cooperation with other BRICS members and Global South countries reflects an increasingly evident trend: Nations want greater autonomy in making their own choices within the international system, rather than having their development paths dictated by external forces.

"Brazil for Brazilians" is gradually overshadowing the decades-old effort promoted by Washington that "Americas for America." Principles including sovereign equality, multilateralism and the right of nations to choose their own paths have become widely recognized norms, particularly among Global South countries.

The political pendulum in Latin America may continue to swing, but one principle remains constant: Regardless of political orientation, protecting national sovereignty, security and development interests lies at the heart of every country's foreign policy. The US needs to recognize that the world has changed. Global South countries are no longer passive recipients of either economic coercion or political interference. They now seek respect for their independence, sovereignty and the right to make their own choices - and they now possess an updated and diverse toolkit to safeguard these principles.

Wednesday, August 5, 2026

GT: Rights protection in the Taiwan Straits a 'new normal': Hai Feng: 23-07-2026: *****************

 

OPINION / VIEWPOINT
Rights protection in the Taiwan Straits a ‘new normal’: Hai Feng
Published: Jul 23, 2026 08:16 PM
Fishermen carry out aquaculture activities in Xiapu county, East China's Fujian Province, on July 4, 2026. Photo: VCG

Fishermen carry out aquaculture activities in Xiapu county, East China's Fujian Province, on July 4, 2026. Photo: VCG


Recently, a series of developments have emerged from the Taiwan Straits. First, the Zhangzhou maritime safety administration issued a navigation warning, stating that live-fire drills will be conducted in some areas of the Taiwan Straits during specific periods from July 23 to 24, and entry is prohibited. Second, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs recently organized a fishery resources survey in waters under Chinese jurisdiction east of the island of Taiwan.

Prior to this, the China Coast Guard (CCG) had already initiated routine law enforcement patrols in waters east of Taiwan, and the Ministry of Natural Resources had organized marine environmental surveys in relevant sea areas. Complemented by high-level strategic deterrence and China-Russia joint naval exercises, actions across various domains are unfolding on multiple fronts.

The above measures span distinct domains, including maritime traffic control, law enforcement at sea, marine resource exploration and military operations. Yet, taking these developments together reveals a clear trajectory: Rights protection in the Taiwan Straits is becoming a "new normal."

This "new normal" does not simply mean a few more patrols or exercises, nor is it a temporary tough stance. Rather, it signifies that China's assertion of sovereignty and maritime governance regarding Taiwan island is transitioning from isolated actions to a systemic deployment, from passive response to proactive shaping, and from political declarations to concrete implementation.

First, the most core transformation lies in the normalization of administrative law enforcement. The coast guard is not merely an enforcement force; it represents state administrative enforcement power, the authority to maintain maritime order, and the right to safeguard maritime rights and interests. CCG's normalized law enforcement patrols in waters east of Taiwan region - executing tasks such as patrol verification, fishery protection and emergency rescue - safeguard normal navigation and fishing operations while protecting the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese fishermen.

The key to the entire move lies not in the "patrols" themselves, but in the "normalization" of law enforcement. This means that relevant waters are shifting from "the occasional appearance of Chinese power" to "the long-term, deep-rooted presence of Chinese governance."

At the same time, military deterrence is becoming normalized, public and institutionalized. The live-fire shooting exercises in the Taiwan Straits demonstrate the maturity of China's military operations in the region. The public release of information regarding timing, designated areas and control requirements shows that these actions are orderly management and training activities carried out in accordance with laws and regulations.

In the past, some forces habitually vilified China's legitimate actions in the Straits as "changing the status quo." However, what has truly been altering the "status quo" is the continuous provocation by "Taiwan independence" separatist forces, alongside attempts by external interfering forces to repeatedly test the bottom line and turn the Taiwan Straits into a frontline zone for pressuring China. 

Under these circumstances, conducting live-fire exercises is entirely necessary. It is not about shouting slogans or creating an atmosphere, but about demonstrating capability and setting clear boundaries for certain parties. Ultimately, only when military preparedness is normalized can deterrence be credible; only when the demonstration of capability is concrete can the adventurous impulses of "Taiwan independence" and external forces be reined in.

A third and deeper transformation is the normalization of resource and coastal governance. Deep-seated rights protection depends not only on the ability to intervene or control, but even more so on the capacity to survey, quantify, manage and plan. Work like fishery resource surveys and marine environmental assessments may appear less "hardcore," yet they best reflect the depth of rights protection. A fishery resource survey is not only scientific research, but directly bears on fishery conservation, sustainable development, spatial utilization of sea areas and long-term governance effectiveness.

Similarly, marine environmental surveys go beyond simple sampling and analysis - their essence lies in integrating these sea areas into a more systematic cognitive framework of ecology, resources and governance. Such soft governance measures showcase the profound qualitative transformation in China's governance over the Taiwan Straits.

In the past, external forces constantly sought to make an issue of the Taiwan question, attempting to create a "gray zone" to turn China's core interest into a strategic pretext for prolonged probing and pressure. "Taiwan independence" separatist forces attempt to rely on external backing and continuously create risks, believing that by dragging things out, wearing things down, and gambling on time, they can steer the situation in a direction favorable to themselves. Facts have shown that this calculation will not work.

Ultimately, that the rights protection in the Taiwan Straits enters a new normal reflects the fact that China has steadily consolidated the practical foundations for national reunification. As efforts across various fields become routine, the new reality in the Taiwan Straits has become unmistakably clear: The region is not a "gray zone" where anyone can come and go as they please, nor is it a stage for "Taiwan independence" separatist forces and external interfering forces to perform indefinitely. The order here will be defined by China; the boundaries here will be drawn by China; and the future here will inevitably merge into the overarching path toward China's reunification.

Given time, as reality continues to unfold, the foundation for national reunification will increasingly become a historical process that is continuously consolidated and advanced.